Objectives: To develop an experiential understanding of what services and resources are most valuable to faculty throughout research and publishing processes. To use this understanding in combination with information in the literature to develop and provide services that anticipate researcher needs at each step of the process.

Methods: Facilitating open access publishing, best practices in literature reviews, scholarly research writing, clinical research data management, preservation, and accessibility: all of these are areas that librarians are working to support in many institutions. In this paper, two librarians from two research-1 universities provide a brief review of relevant literature. They follow with lessons learned and best practices identified during experiences as part of graduate student or faculty learning and working groups. These include: participation in a clinical research evaluation course; being a coauthor during writing, submitting, and revising of a scholarly peer-reviewed article, and negotiating copyright terms with an academic publisher; and participating in a faculty writing group for mutual motivation and constructive commentary on in-process writing projects.

Results: In this observational and participative study, the authors found that by taking advantage of opportunities to join groups in their research communities, they expanded their own skill sets while also expanding their contextual understanding of researcher support needs, including faculty, instructors, researchers, and graduate students. Through physical and online participation in learning, training, and working spaces along with their constituent communities, the authors built strong connections and mutual understanding. By being present (online or in-person) when questions occurred, they increased opportunities to provide in-context support for literature review searching techniques; citation management tools; copyright, journal selection, and publishing questions; and data management planning.

Conclusions: Each profession, discipline, and employment has its learning communities, informal or time-specific subgroups that come about as needed or for required trainings. Learning communities are where those in a given discipline or employment explore tasks in a collaborative setting and learn together, developing new skills and mastery through practice with peer and expert feedback. Such communities might take the form of a course on clinical research, an informal writing group, a seminar series, or even a cross-department event-planning group. By joining such groups, librarians can build on common experiences to form stronger relationships with their communities, gaining two critical benefits: (1) opportunities to provide research and information expertise in context and (2) greater recognition as part of the community and of what librarians do and their areas of expertise.

Objectives: This pilot study analyzes citation patterns of international health (IH) research. The authors hypothesize that researchers use journal articles more than other resources as other public health literature mapping projects have shown. This study's objective is to identify key journals in IH and unique or common citation patterns in IH in comparison to areas like infectious disease or environmental health.

Methods: The authors selected research articles published in January 2013 issues of four IH journals: Bulletin of the World Health Organization (BWHO), Health Policy and Planning (HPP), Lancet Infectious Diseases (LID), and the Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition (JHPN). The criteria for journal selection were based on Core Public Health Journals Project version 2.0, Journal Citation Reports (JCR), and Scopus. Data were collected by compiling all citations used by research articles. In addition to journals, books, and other published sources, this study identifies cited sources of gray literature in IH and the extent to which Internet sources are used in formal IH research. With open data trends in mind, this study looks for the citation of data sets.

Results: Out of 1,246 total citations, 817 (66%) were journal articles, 210 (17%) were miscellaneous, 205 (16%) were books/monographs, and 14 (1%) were government documents. The most highly cited journal titles were Lancet (86 citations) and BWHO (33 citations). Two journals that the authors expected to have high citations, but did not, were Lancet: Infectious Disease and American Journal of Public Health. The poster will also include:

1. Cited journals by subject.
2. Publication date of citations.
3. Examination of the miscellaneous category for data set citations.

Conclusions: Journal articles remain the most highly cited source type for public health research, seconded by gray literature and web resources; then monographs and United States government documents. Gray literature and web resources represent information provided by governments throughout the world, including 5 examples of government data sets. Compared to previous public health journal studies with journal article citation close to 90%, this study shows a lower percentage of journal articles (66%) relative to other source types. While recent articles are cited most, cited journal articles greatly range in age at citation. This study also showed lower citations of typically highly cited public health journal titles and major medical journals. There is a need for older journals. Librarians may want to focus on clinical journals that are relevant to their programs. Citation of data sets does not seem common yet, but this is something to monitor regarding public health data sources. Future studies could look at whether availability of global online government sources and online translation tools may be resulting in greater use of multiple language sources.