© 2025 Northwestern University
Galter offers two support models (consult and full collaboration) for reviews, each with different levels of effort and expectation. Visit the Systematic & Scoping Review Services at Galter page to learn more about our support models.
Complete the online request form and a librarian will follow up within five to seven business days to schedule an initial consultation.
Reviews often take over a year to complete.
Teams collaborating with Galter librarians take on average 12.5 months to complete a systematic review and 14 months to complete a scoping review after submitting the protocol.
Galter librarians and staff only provide hands-on assistance with review-related tasks for teams working with librarians under the full-collaboration model.
See the Systematic Reviews Tools page or attend a Conducting a Systematic Review: Part 2 - Tools & Resources class for more information and tips on tools that can assist you with completing tasks in both the systematic and scoping review processes.
Galter Library offers several guides and classes, with more in development. See below for training and additional resources for conducting reviews.
Criteria includes a unique research question (also see Duplicative Reviews), the team has a year or longer to conduct the review, and the team and librarian sign a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines expectations and responsibilities.
Systematic and scoping reviews require significant time and resources. At Galter Library, staff typically dedicate 20 hours or more to each review under the full-collaboration model.
Funding for librarian effort is expected for reviews supporting grant applications and for projects that have already been awarded funding to undertake reviews.
The answer might be "no" because the level of support between institutions is shaped by varying factors such as resource availability, capacity constraints, service models, institutional priorities, and expertise.
The Galter librarians who support reviews also manage multiple requests or responsibilities simultaneously. We carefully considered the above factors (resource availability, capacity constraints, service models, institutional priorities, and expertise) to ensure the continuation of our full collaborative service model and while providing highest level of support to all collaborative reviews.
A librarian satisfies the criteria for authorship set forth by ICMJE when they make substantial intellectual contributions to the review. This includes activities like designing and executing comprehensive search strategies, translating searches across multiple databases, documenting the search methodology, and writing relevant sections of the manuscript.
Co-authorship is expected when the librarian serves as collaborator rather than consultant. Agreement on co-authorship including roles and responsibilities is established prior to the start of a review and documented in with signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the reviewers and collaborating librarian.
Generally, no. Librarians should not run searches designed by others because their expertise lies in developing and refining comprehensive search strategies that meet the rigorous standards of systematic and scoping reviews. Running a pre-designed search without making intellectual contributions undermines the librarian’s role as a methodology expert and is inconsistent with the principles of authorship.
An exception to this is when a search needs to be updated, and the original librarian is unavailable to rerun it. The new librarian may assist with rerunning the search but should ensure that proper credit is given to the original search designer.
Full collaborative support is available only to teams who can complete their reviews while affiliated with Northwestern. Librarian involvement is outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding, which outlines the required commitments by the librarian and team from project initiation to completion. Since Galter Library services are exclusive to Feinberg School of Medicine members, those anticipating a change in affiliation should consider Galter's consult model or an alternative literature review.
Systematic and scoping reviews are designed to be team-based projects. They require multiple independent reviewers to minimize bias during screening, data extraction, and analysis. Additionally, these reviews involve complex methodologies that benefit from diverse expertise. If you are working alone, you may want to consider a less rigorous review type, such as a narrative or rapid review.
© 2025 Northwestern University