Conference Agenda

To read the abstracts of submissions, click on the title of the session at the top of the cell, not on the title of the submission.  

Session Overview
O 2.2: Online Discussion Resources and Metrics
Friday, 10/June/2022:
10:30am - 11:00am

Session Chair: Wichor Bramer

The abstracts will not be presented live during this session. You can are advised to view the recorded presentations before this session. Presenters will briefly introduce themselves and then discuss their research, and answers questions.

Show help for 'Increase or decrease the abstract text size'
ID: 221 / O 2.2: 1
Online Oral Presentation
Topics: Resources and metrics

Publishing pandemics, retractions and the role of medical librarians

Ivana Majer, Lea Škorić

University of Zagreb, School of Medicine, Croatia

The unprecedented increase in the publication of papers during the COVID-19 pandemic has altered established patterns of scientific communication. In order to publish the results of the research as soon as possible, oversights in the editorial and review process can occur. Due to misconduct or errors, some published papers get retracted. However, once the information is published and it’s publicly available, it can never be completely withdrawn. Retracted papers continue to be used and cited, or they continue their life through papers that cited them before the retraction. In the field of clinical medicine and public health, this can lead to dangerous consequences.
Based on a set of retracted COVID-19 journal papers, we aim to investigate the time between publication and retraction, citations of retracted papers, and most importantly - the reasons for retractions. In the light of the findings we will discuss the opportunities for medical librarians to engage in educating students, physicians, and scientists regarding advanced information literacy skills and scientific publishing in general.

Retractions of journal papers on SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 were identified using the running list of retracted papers available on the Retraction Watch webpage (1). The time span from manuscript submission till acceptance and the time span between publication and retraction date were investigated. Visibility of retraction notice was investigated on journals' web, in PubMed and in Web of Science Core Collection database. Type of retraction and the reasons for retractions were analyzed, as well as, citations in the WoS CC database.

On January 2nd 2022 there were 164 published journal papers on COVID-19 listed in the Retraction Watch webpage. The reasons for retraction vary, and for many they are unclear or even unknown. A lack of data on date of retraction is also noticeable. Visibility of the retraction notice varies on publishers' websites and in bibliographic databases, and a significant number of papers remain unmarked and still available in original form. In addition, our findings show that many of the retracted papers continue to be cited.


Non-transparent retractions and subsequent use of retracted papers undermine trust in science, both among scientists and the public. Medical libraries play an important role in educating students, physicians and scientists in information literacy and critical thinking skills, and in responsible and ethical use of literature. Central Medical Library, affiliated with the University of Zagreb School of Medicine (UZSM), accomplishes this by participating in various courses at all levels of study programs, and through informal workshops and face-to-face informal consultations. Lessons learned from the analysis of retracted papers can be of great use for these activities.

Human Touch

All these activities empower medical librarians to connect with their users and patrons, create partnership networks, but also to initiate a dialogue on questionable topics and practices.


1. Retractionwatch. Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers. [cited 2022 Jan 2]. Available from:

Biography and Bibliography
IVANA MAJER graduated from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Zagreb, and got her degree in Croatian Language and Literature and Information Sciences (MLIS). She works as a librarian at the Central Medical Library at the University of Zagreb School of Medicine. Areas of her interest include subject cataloguing and indexing, scientific communication and publishing, digital repositories, and methodology of writing scientific and research papers with a special emphasis on language editing.

- Markulin H, Majer I. [Academic librarian as the author of the exhibition: the example of the Central medical library exhibition celebrating the 100th anniversary of the University of Zagreb School of medicine]. Vjesnik bibliotekara Hrvatske. 2020;63(1-2):479-502.
- Majer I, Šember M. [Conferences as a form of users’ continuing education: the example of the Central medical library at the University of Zagreb School of medicine]. Vjesnik bibliotekara Hrvatske. 2018;61(2):325-42.

LEA ŠKORIĆ, Ph.D., works as a head of Central Medical Library at the University of Zagreb School of Medicine. In addition to planning, organization and management of the Library, she is involved in scientific research work, and regularly participates in teaching activities on undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate level. She publishes scientific and professional papers in scientific journals, actively participates in international and domestic professional conferences and reviews papers for Croatian scientific journals. She is a member of several expert committees at the School of Medicine, and works on projects at the University of Zagreb and at the national level.
Her interests include scientific publishing, methods of quantitative and qualitative evaluation of scientific papers, open access, open science, biomedical information systems organization, information literacy, theory and practice of subject cataloguing and library management.

- Macan B, Škorić L, Petrak J. David among Goliaths: Open access publishing in scientific (semi-)periphery. Learned Publishing. 2020;33(4):410-17.
- Škorić L, Glasnović A, Petrak J. A publishing pandemic during the COVID-19 pandemic: How challenging can it become? Croat Med J. 2020;61(2):79-81.
- Vrkić D, Škorić L, Petrak J. Altmetrics of papers from scientific periphery reflect global trends: a case study of publications by Zagreb University School of Medicine. Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2017;43(6):479-86.
- Škorić L, Petrak J. Croatian medical journals and standards for good editing practice: an author instructions analysis. Lijec Vjesn. 2017;139(7-8):204-10.
- Šember M, Škoric L, Petrak J. Current impact of ceased journals: Are they still alive? Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science. 2017;22(1):15-27.
- Škorić, L., Vrkić, D., Petrak, J. Current state of open access to journal publications from the University of Zagreb School of Medicine. Croat Med J. 2016;57(1):71-6.
- Škorić L, Šember M, Markulin H, Petrak J. Information literacy in the graduate study curriculum at the School of medicine, University of Zagreb. Vjesnik bibliotekara Hrvatske. 2012;55(3-4):17-28.

Majer-Publishing pandemics, retractions and the role of medical librarians-221_a.pdf

Majer-Publishing pandemics, retractions and the role of medical librarians-221_b.pptx

ID: 1145 / O 2.2: 2
Oral Presentation
Topics: Resources and metrics

Effective training to enhance author tracking citations to boost research evaluation

Elisabetta Poltronieri, Cristina Mancini, Giuse Ardita, Donatella Gentili, Maria Salvatorina Graziani, Paola Pecci, Filippo Santoro, Monica Zedda, Paola De Castro

Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Italy

Author disambiguation (variants of author name) stands for a crucial point for information professionals committed to updating authors' profile in citation databases of multidisciplinary, peer-reviewed literature (Web of Science and Scopus).

By implementing the training of the internal research staff on how measuring impact of scientific papers, the Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS, Italian National Institute of Health) is committed to fully comply with the internal policy on archiving procedures and promoting open access publications, recently signed by the ISS President.

ISS has recently set up an internal task force aiming at supporting internal research staff (about 1000 people) in the daily practice of checking paper lists under their profile, to avoid misidentification and to get effective metrics score (H index etc.). This is a central objective of research evaluation process and reporting of annual activities to obtain funding. The constant effort is that of providing current training and continuing educational tools to enable researchers managing their own profiles on the platforms devoted to host citations and metrics.
Method/ Program Description

A methodological approach has been developed to help researchers to become more familiar in building on their unique identifiers (ResearcherID, ScopusID and ORCID), thus mantaining accurate accounts.

Further efforts for improving quality of scientific communication and transparency of research results (publications and data) are being undertaken within a recently set ISS working group on Integrity of research.

In this perspective, the ISS institutional repository OAI – PMH compliant, PublISS (, is planning to implement the ORCID API aimed at linking authors and all their name variants with their publications. Interconnecting PublISS with ORCID Registry can help populating author profiles, thus improving search and retrieval of biomedical literature to support networking and collaboration.

Results/ Evaluation

Critical issues linked to changing platforms interfaces, level of author’s autonomy in managing their accounts, number of researchers equipped with unique identifiers and testing of users' navigation skills will be analysed and evaluated.

Deeply inspiring activities for assessing research effectiveness were those carried on under the umbrella of DORA (Declaration of Research Assessment) and TARA (Advance Research Assessment) project. Both initiatives aim at re-affirming the importance of best practises for the evaluation of scholarly research based on a responsible use of metrics, thus avoiding inappropriate manipulation of quantitative research impact, in view of adopting criteria and standards to reform research assessment.

Human Touch (Recommended)

This work is intended to strenghten close collobaration and networking culture among colleagues dealing with different tasks within the same Instituion (IT expert, librarians, scientific information professionals, researchers) in order to improve the whole institutional performance.

All the above-described components of the scholarly communication system accelerate the process of a virtuous engagement of all stakeholders acting within the scientific research community.

Biography and Bibliography
Elisabetta Poltronieri, is working at the Scientific Communication Service of the Italian Institute of Health, the leading research body in Italy in the field of public health.
Her main responsibilities include bibliographic editing and the diffusion of scientific work published by the Institute research staff.

Poltronieri-Effective training to enhance author tracking citations to boost research evaluation-1145_a.pdf

ID: 1229 / O 2.2: 3
Oral Presentation
Topics: Resources and metrics

Innovations in preprint peer review - What new forms of peer review does preprinting facilitate?

Susana Oliveira Henriques1,2,3, Ludo Waltman1,2, Stephen Pinfield1,4, Naemin Rzayeva1,2

1Research on Research Institute; 2Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University; 3School of Medicine, University of Lisbon; 4University of Sheffield


The coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the importance of an effective scholarly communication system. Traditional scholarly communication channels, particularly peer-reviewed journals, have been put under pressure to deal with Covid-19-related research in a timely way. At the same time, there was an unprecedented rise in the use of preprints by the biomedical scientific community. Preprint servers make work available rapidly (albeit usually in a form before peer review) and openly, meaning they can be accessed in a timely way by scientists, policymakers, medical practitioners, journalists, and citizens in general. Although preprints have played an essential role in the dissemination of research about Covid-19, concerns remain about quality assurance and misinformation as potential risks to public health.


We provide an overview of recent innovative projects that enable evaluative peer interactions (e.g., comments, recommendations, reviews), addressing the need for more transparent and responsible use of preprints. Also, we identify future trends and provide recommendations. Finally, we aim to promote discussion about the role of preprint peer review in the scholarly communication system and the contributions that different actors in the system can make to these developments.

Method/ Program Description

Based on the ReimagineReview registry developed by ASAPbio, we collected information on 44 projects that provide innovation in peer review, particularly peer review of preprints. Detailed information on each project was collected through online research and organised into four main categories: i) general description; ii) peer review process; iii) sustainability; and iv) maturity.

Results/ Evaluation

Globally, data show us that different groups (e.g., individuals, publishers, and professional societies), from various disciplinary fields, with different aims and needs, are involved in the development of innovative projects to increase speed, quality, transparency, incentivisation, or fairness of peer review. Also, we observe the emergence of different types of quality assessment (e.g., free-form commenting, badges, and quantitative scores), new patterns of communication (e.g., interaction between authors, reviewers and the public in general) and innovative approaches to peer review (e.g., pre or post-publication peer review, public commenting, public recommendation, quantitative scores or summaries of the evidence). As this is an ongoing project, we can only present provisional results mainly from the first two categories listed above.


It is too early to assess the long-term sustainability and impact of the various projects and the way in which these projects fit the aims and needs of different stakeholders. Nevertheless, our work does show that several valuable services are being provided. It also shows how these services could potentially improve trust in research reporting, and it highlights future trends in scholarly communication and peer review.

Human Touch (Recommended)

The scientific peer review system is overburdened, and there appears to be a growing dissatisfaction among authors, reviewers and journal editors. Our work suggests improvements that could make the system more informal, collaborative, rapid, open, public and transparent, which will hopefully help to turn peer review into a more rewarding experience for all stakeholders involved.

Biography and Bibliography
Susana Oliveira Henriques is an External PhD candidate at the Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University. Susana’s research interests include innovation in scholarly communication and peer review, with a special focus on dissemination and quality control of biomedical research. She is also interested in research management, science policy and responsible use of metrics. Susana holds a degree in History and a Master in Library Sciences. She is head of the Central Library - Center for Information and Documentation of the University of Lisbon School of Medicine, where she is also a guest teacher of Evidence Based Medicine, Preventive Medicine and Public Health.
ORCID: 0000-0002-0947-5083

Recent publication:
Waltman, Ludo; Pinfield, Stephen; Rzayeva, Narmin; Oliveira Henriques, Susana; Fang, Zhichao; Brumberg, Johanna; et al. (2021): Scholarly communication in times of crisis: The response of the scholarly communication system to the COVID-19 pandemic. Research on Research Institute. Report.

Henriques-Innovations in preprint peer review-1229_a.pdf

ID: 1128 / O 2.2: 4
Oral Presentation
Topics: Resources and metrics

Maximise the research impact of your institution: a use case of Ghent University Hospital

Greet Wieme1, Muguet Koobasi1, Ann De Meulemeester1, Anniek Toye2, Renaat R. Peleman1, Nele S. Pauwels1

1Knowledge Centre for Health Ghent, Ghent University, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium; 2Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Aim: Healthcare professionals and hospital policy makers are providing the best possible care on a daily basis, ensuring sustainable hospital performance and effectively managing costs. Next to healthcare analytics, key performance indicators reflecting the scientific output and impact are crucial for academic hospitals. Research metrics - traditional and next-generation - drive policy decisions and allocation of funds.

Methods: A bibliometric analysis of the impact and output of Ghent University Hospital was performed using InCites and Altmetric Explorer. The analysis was performed for the hospital and for each of the approximately 60 medical departments. The results of these analyses were presented to various policy-making bodies of the hospital and Ghent University that is the hospitals’ parent organisation. To optimise our analysis, we formulated actions on the level of the analysis tool and actions towards researchers.

Results: Thanks to the recruitment of a new member on our team, an awareness campaign for our researchers was rolled out. As a result of information sessions, workshops, an infographic, an interactive Power BI presentation and personal assistance, we made our researchers aware of how to correctly affiliate to our hospital and to create, use and update their ORCID iDs. Additionally, medical departments were encouraged to standardise their affiliation to their department. We started to contact Ghent University Hospital employees with an ORCID iD to connect their ORCID iD to their Ghent University profile. Over a 7 week period, we had a success rate of 44% (38/86), but this is continuously evolving.

Furthermore, we analysed articles published by our researchers that were not automatically linked to our hospital in Web of Science. We identified synonyms and variants that were used for our institution. By adding these synonyms and variants in Web of Science, more than 2000 publications (>600 publications in 2016-2020) were additionally assigned to our institution. This resulted in an increase of 8% of publications correctly linked with Ghent University Hospital and in an important gain of analytical information in InCites.

Conclusion: Generally speaking for researchers, the availability of metrics depends on their research output being available online. Research that is openly available, will be accessible to more people and will, therefore, have a greater impact. Recently, xxxx initiated a project to increase the visibility of research being conducted at Ghent University Hospital, which is the cornerstone of research metrics. Thanks to our two-sided approach – on the level of the researcher and the analysis tool – analyses conducted for our institution are more accurate and will be increasingly more accurate in the future. Research performed at Ghent University (Hospital) will thus become more visible to the public and the government for policy decisions and financial support. During this session, experiences and lessons learnt will be shared to inspire others who perform bibliometric analyses

Human touch of your submission in your abstract: We note that despite all the information campaigns and sessions, personal support on bibliometrics is vital. We will, therefore, continue to work on this aspect.

Wieme-Maximise the research impact of your institution-1128_a.pdf

Wieme-Maximise the research impact of your institution-1128_b.mp4

ID: 1139 / O 2.2: 5
Oral Presentation
Topics: Resources and metrics

The use of Handle System on institutional repositories and their connection with alternative metrics

Elena Pastor-ramon1, Lluís Codina2, Cristòfol Rovira2

1Virtual Health Sciences of the Balearic Islands, University Pompeu Fabra, Spain; 2University Pompeu Fabra, Spain


There are about 164 institutional repositories (IR) from EAHIL countries registered in OpenDoar. Many of these repositories are not using the Handle System (HS) as a persistent identifier (PI).

Also, they are not showing the altmetrics offered by Altmetric and PlumX, and many have not installed the API that allows to measure the altmetrics of the documents in these IR.

PI with which the altmetrics work take into account the DOI, if the document does not have it, PMID or the ArxiV identifier are detected. The HS, although the instructions offered by the providers of these metrics tell us that it works as a PI, the reality is that the only way to see the impact in a document with just HS assigned is to put the badge of one of these tools or installing their APIs.


To show how many IR from EAHIL member countries are assigning handles to their records, as well as to know if these repositories are collecting information from Altmetric and PlumX.

Also, we want to provide a checklist with those characteristics that an IR should have to provide as much information as possible on these metrics to be efficient and give value to the documents deposited in it.


A search was carried out in OpenDoar limiting to IR, which had journal articles and limiting to the subjects "Health and Medicine" and Psychology, then we searched limited to each country with EAHIL partners. An Excel document was created in which we added the fields of the institution, URL of the repository, if it had a handle, if it had other persistent identifiers, if it had information on alternative metrics and if it did not have this information if it could at least be tracked by these bibliometric tools.


Many of the European repositories are not assigning a HS to their records, they give generic URLs that could mean that if that repository changed domains its records could no longer be found and all the information for that record would have to be provided again. By not providing a handle, the different social impact measurement tools may not be able to detect this information. Furthermore, although these repositories do assign the HS, by not having installed the API or not having notified Altmetric or PlumX so that they can be tracked by them, they do not allow these metrics to detect the information of the repository's records, which means that the impact they may be having is not known.


Although great advances have been made in the creation of IR, many of them are still in elementary stages. Our analysis provides an insight into the current situation of institutional repositories in health, medicine, and psychology from EAHIL partners in terms of the use of PI, especially the HS. We also show a picture of how altmetrics are being used by country, we want to show if they are being given the importance that Altmetric and PlumX seem to have in theory.

Biography and Bibliography
Elena Pastor-Ramon, a librarian from the Virtual Health Sciences Library (Bibliosalut) since 2003 and Ph.D. student from the University Pompeu Fabra since 2020.

Pastor-Ramon, Elena; Páez, Virgili (2021). «Mejora del impacto mediante difusión de la investigación en redes sociales: #PublicaSalutIB». Investigación Bibliotecológica: archivonomía, bibliotecología e información, v. 35, n. 88, p. 29.

Pastor-Ramon, Elena; Codina, Lluís; Rovira, Cristòfol (2021). «Value of Digital Object Identifier in Academic Journals and Its Influence on Social and Academic Impact: Nursing Journals Experience». En: Abstract Book Workshop Proceedings Abstract Book,

García-puente, María; Pastor-ramon, Elena; Agirre, Oskia; Morán, José-maría; García-puente, María; Pastor-ramon, Elena (2020). «Research note. Open letter to the users of the new PubMed: a critical appraisal», pp. 1-5.

Dr. Lluís Codina and Dr. Cristòfol Rovira, are professors from the University Pompeu Fabra.

Pastor-ramon-The use of Handle System on institutional repositories and their connection with alternative_a.pptx

ID: 1111 / O 2.2: 6
Oral Presentation
Topics: Resources and metrics

How Health Education England and NHS Librarians collaborated to share and peer review COVID-19 literature searches during the pandemic

Helene Gorring1, Lindsay Snell2

1Health Education England, United Kingdom; 2University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom


In response to the evident need to enable more sharing and reduce duplication during the COVID-19 pandemic, Health Education England (HEE) mobilised a group of expert searchers from across the NHS in England. With many NHS library staff redeployed in the first wave of the pandemic, HEE was keen to make a shared bank of literature searches relating to COVID-19 available to NHS staff who had limited access to library services and expert searchers.

The group worked at speed to develop a database and health librarians were invited to submit searches and strategies they had completed on Covid topics. The expert searchers conducted light touch peer review before making content available on the Knowledge for Healthcare website.


The aim of our study was to document the origins of the Covid-19 search bank, evaluate attitudes of the NHS health library community towards it, and capture learning from the expert searchers about their experiences project.


Structured interviews with the peer reviewers were conducted, and a survey of the NHS library community using the search bank was undertaken.


A total of 258 searches were submitted to the group between mid-March and beginning of December 2020, of which 209 were included in the search bank. 85 health librarians responded to the survey and interviews yielded valuable qualitative data.

Both the survey and interview responses demonstrated the strong ethos of collaboration in the NHS library community and a desire to contribute to the disaster response to the pandemic by sharing, saving others time and effort.

Discussion and Conclusion

Peer review is a sensitive topic, but important for quality assurance and valuable professional development. We found that a buddy system is particularly beneficial for peer reviewers, but that a clearer structure for a peer review process is needed.

The project identified that the quality of searches is variable, and that even competent searchers displayed a lack of confidence in their abilities. It was clear that in any future search bank initiatives feedback on searches and strategies submitted should be provided to critique work and provide suggestions.

Neither the survey or interviews validated the need or appetite for a non-topic-specific search bank. It was identified that any future search banks need a clear purpose as searches are otherwise too diverse. Search strategies were considered more useful as a resource than the searches themselves which quickly go out of date.

The main weakness of the project was found to be the lack of clearer guidance for contributors. Whilst this was due to the evolving nature of the initiative, the limited research available at the start of the pandemic, and that the group sought to take a pragmatic and responsive approach, clearer parameters would need to be in place for any future search bank.

All the peer reviewers involved in this initiative clearly felt it to have been a personally and professionally rewarding process with positive impacts on their practice and other benefits such as wider networking with health librarians.

Biography and Bibliography
Hélène Gorring

Helene has worked at Health Education England since 2018, working at a national and regional level (London & the South East) level to provide professional support to NHS librarians on resource discovery.
Prior to this she was Library Manager for a mental health NHS Trust in Birmingham for 12 years.
Helene was International Officer for CILIP’s Health Libraries Group for many years, working with Partnerships in Health Information (Phi) to run a bursary for health librarians from Low and Middle Income Countries and also managing the Core Collections series of books.

Lindsay Snell

Lindsay is a Clinical Librarian, providing knowledge and evidence support to a number of teams and groups within University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust. She previously worked in outreach roles supporting primary care and community based staff. She is an experienced searcher, with a particular interest in literature searches provided to clinical and managerial staff to support their day to day work.

Gorring-How Health Education England and NHS Librarians collaborated to share and peer review COVID-19 liter_a.pptx

ID: 1151 / O 2.2: 7
Oral Presentation
Topics: Resources and metrics

Computational assistance in the analysis of cited references in biomedical literature: a case study from two institutions

Teresa Lee1, Pablo Iriarte2, Floriane Sophie Muller2, Ramon Cierco Jimenez1

1International Agency for Research on Cancer, France; 2Library of the University of Geneva

At Institution A, a building move in 2022 requires a 40% reduction of its physical collection and a weeding strategy for the library’s print journals. From this scenario a question emerges: how old, on average, is the literature cited by in-house scientists in their own publications? According to Kaplan et al.1 recent materials are accessed more frequently than older ones, with a significant drop for anything older than 15 years. In this project, we empirically test this assertion using computational assistance. Institution A’s librarian teamed up with a doctoral student in bioinformatics to parse citations retrieved from Web of Science based on an OG (enhanced organization) field search. University of B collaborators joined the experimental effort to test not only Kaplan et al.’s rule1, but to interrogate the dataset in ways that may shed light on historic citation trends, open-access and the electronic availability of research literature, the lasting prominence of super-cited references, and more.
1. To build a librarian-friendly utility for the parsing of Web of Science records that allows analysis of the cited items associated with the primary set of records.
2. To see whether the 15-year rule for cited literature holds true of the article outputs of Institution A and the University of B’s biomedical faculty.
3. To ascertain what other findings regarding historical citation trends, open-access and the electronic availability of literature arise from an experimental parsing and interrogation of the dataset resulting from Web of Science affiliation-based searches.
Sets of records based on OG (enhanced organization) field searches for the University of B and for Institution A will be retrieved and parsed using Python2 or R3. A methodology for cleaning up the parsed set of records will be determined, implemented, and reported. Parsed and cleaned data from this initial process will be correlated with data from other sources of information (for e.g., CrossRef) to find answers to questions that go beyond what analysing Web of Science records alone can provide
1. Kaplan R, Steinberg M, Doucette J. Retention of retrospective print journals in the digital age: trends and analysis. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94(4):387-e200.
2. Van Rossum, G., & Drake Jr, F. L. (1995). Python reference manual. Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica Amsterdam.
3. R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL
Human Touch (Recommended)
Multidisciplinary collaboration; experimentation

Biography and Bibliography
Teresa Lee is the Knowledge Manager at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (UARC/WHO), where she leads the central publications programme, library and web services.

Pablo Iriarte is the IT coordinator of the University of Geneva Library since 2017. He studied physics and worked for several years at the Lausanne University Hospital as IT manager for the Medical Library and the Documentation and Data unit of the Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine.

Floriane Muller works as a full-time scientific librarian for the medical and pharmaceutical unit of the University of Geneva Library since 2015. Initially responsible of the interlibrary loan and document delivery service, she is now in charge of Open Access, Publishing and Research Data Management support. She has a master’s degree in Information Science from the University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland.

Ramon Cierco Jimenez is a PhD student in bioinformatics from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) doing his project at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon (France). He has a master’s degree in Omics data analysis, and a univeristiy degree in Biotechnology, both from the Univeristat de Vic - Universitat Central de Catalunya (UVIC-UCC)

Lee-Computational assistance in the analysis of cited references in biomedical literature-1151_a.pptx

Contact and Legal Notice · Contact Address:
Privacy Statement · Conference: EAHIL 2022
Conference Software - ConfTool Pro 2.6.144
© 2001–2022 by Dr. H. Weinreich, Hamburg, Germany