The resources listed by respondents included 50 unique titles. Of the 37 (63.8%) respondents whose library did not license nontraditional online resources, major barriers that were noted included a lack of Internet protocol (IP) authentication, licenses that charge per user, and affordable institutional pricing. Conclusions Evaluation criteria for nontraditional online resources should be developed and refined, and these resources should be examined over time to determine their potential and actual use by students. There is a growing demand for many of these resources among students, but the lack of financial and access models that serve libraries' needs is an obstacle to institutional licensing. Copyright © 2020, Authors.Objective Libraries in academic health centers may license electronic resources for their affiliated hospitals, as well as for their academic institutions. This study examined the current practices of member libraries of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) that provide affiliated hospitals with access to electronic information resources and described the challenges that the libraries experienced in providing access to the affiliated hospitals. Methods In September 2016, AAHSL library directors received an email with a link to an online survey. Results By December 2016, representatives from 60 AAHSL libraries responded. Two-thirds of the responding libraries supplied online information resources to more than 1 hospital, and 75% of these libraries provided the hospitals with access both on site and remotely. Most (69%) libraries licensed the same resource for both the academic institution and the hospitals. Cost, license negotiation, and communication with hospital stakeholders were commonly reported challenges. Conclusion Academic health sciences libraries with affiliated hospitals continue to grapple with licensing and cost issues. Copyright © 2020, Authors.Objective The primary objective of this study was to explore different dimensions of Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) authorship from 2006-2017. Dimensions that were evaluated using coauthorship networks and affiliation data included collaboration, geographical reach, and relationship between Medical Library Association (MLA) member and nonmember authors. A secondary objective was to analyze the practice and practical application of data science skills. Methods A team of librarians who attended the 2017 Data Science and Visualization Institute used JMLA bibliographic metadata extracted from Scopus, together with select MLA membership data from 2006-2017. Data cleaning, anonymization, analysis, and visualization were done collaboratively by the team members to meet their learning objectives and to produce insights about the nature of collaborative authorship at JMLA. Results Sixty-nine percent of the 1,351 JMLA authors from 2006-2017 were not MLA members. MLA members were more productive and collaborative, and tended to author articles together.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/rk-701.html  The majority of the authoring institutions in JMLA are based in the United States. Global reach outside of the United States and Canada shows higher authorship in English-speaking countries (e.g., Australia, United Kingdom), as well as in Western Europe and Japan. Conclusions MLA support of JMLA may benefit a wider network of health information specialists and medical professionals than is reflected in MLA membership. Conducting coauthorship network analyses can create opportunities for health sciences librarians to practice applying emerging data science and data visualization skills. Copyright © 2020, Authors.Objective Evidence-based medicine practices of medical students in clinical scenarios are not well understood. Optimal foraging theory (OFT) is one framework that could be useful in breaking apart information-seeking patterns to determine effectiveness and efficiency of different methods of information seeking. The aims of this study were to use OFT to determine the number and type of resources used in information seeking when medical students answer a clinical question, to describe common information-seeking patterns, and identify patterns associated with higher quality answers to a clinical question. Methods Medical students were observed via screen recordings while they sought evidence related to a clinical question and provided a written response for what they would do for that patient based on the evidence that they found. Results Half (51%) of study participants used only 1 source before answering the clinical question. While the participants were able to successfully and efficiently navigate point-of-care tools and search engines, searching PubMed was not favored, with only half (48%) of PubMed searches being successful. There were no associations between information-seeking patterns and the quality of answers to the clinical question. Conclusion Clinically experienced medical students most frequently relied on point-of-care tools alone or in combination with PubMed to answer a clinical question. OFT can be used as a framework to understand the information-seeking practices of medical students in clinical scenarios. This has implications for both teaching and assessment of evidence-based medicine in medical students. Copyright © 2020, Authors.Objective The purpose of predatory open access (OA) journals is primarily to make a profit rather than to disseminate quality, peer-reviewed research. Publishing in these journals could negatively impact faculty reputation, promotion, and tenure, yet many still choose to do so. Therefore, the authors investigated faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory OA journals. Methods A twenty-item questionnaire containing both quantitative and qualitative items was developed and piloted. All university and medical school faculty were invited to participate. The survey included knowledge questions that assessed respondents' ability to identify predatory OA journals and attitudinal questions about such journals. Chi-square tests were used to detect differences between university and medical faculty. Results A total of 183 faculty completed the survey 63% were university and 37% were medical faculty. Nearly one-quarter (23%) had not previously heard of the term "predatory OA journal." Most (87%) reported feeling very confident or confident in their ability to assess journal quality, but only 60% correctly identified a journal as predatory, when given a journal in their field to assess.