We often are asked: “Can you help us with our systematic review search strategy?”
Sometimes it is “Could you please guide us?” and at other times it is “Could you do the whole search for us?”
At QMed, we’re happy that people recognize the importance of a proper search strategy—but the bigger concern is this: many still assume that search strategies are quick, intuitive, and best of all—free or nearly free.
The Foundation of a Systematic Review Isn’t the Software — It’s the Search
On our eLearning platform, we offer a complete course titled “Advanced PubMed Searching for Authoring Systematic Reviews.”
Once someone enrolls, they get access to all courses, including this one. The fee? A nominal quarterly or annual amount—designed to make learning accessible, but also to ensure sustainability.
Why?
Because constructing a search strategy for a systematic review isn’t casual Googling. It requires precision, iteration, experience—and most importantly—the awareness that missing even one relevant term could mean missing a relevant study. And that missing study could weaken the evidence.
That’s not a small consequence. That’s a structural crack at the foundation level.
So Why Do Search Strategies Cost Time and Money?
Because the expertise comes from:
- A two-year postgraduate degree in Library and Information Sciences
- Years of experience helping numerous researchers refine or build their literature search
- Continued investment in resources, training, and staying updated with complex database behaviours
And yet—very often the expectation is:
- Teach us for free
- Do the entire search for a token fee
- Or even more amusing: We can’t pay you—but we’ll offer authorship!
Let’s be clear:
If someone builds your search strategy—the very backbone of the review—they should automatically qualify for authorship. They are accountable for defending the method when peer reviewers question it.
Authorship isn’t generosity—it’s ethics.
What Happened to Fair Value?
In Western countries, trained Information Specialists charge professional fees and ask for authorship—and they get both.
In India, we still have to justify why our expertise deserves a budget.
If we truly want systematic reviews that are reliable, reproducible, and globally comparable, we must invest—not just in tools, but in trained people.
The Real Cost of “Free”
- Free training does not build a community of skilled information specialists
- Free services do not help organisations grow
- Free work does not pay salaries, taxes, resources, or technology
- As we say often—authorship is nice to have. But it does not pay the electricity bill
If India wants better evidence-based healthcare, we need to acknowledge that expertise in systematic review searching is not a luxury—it’s a necessity. And it deserves both respect—and a proper budget
SystematicReviews #PubMedSearching #EvidenceBasedMedicine #ResearchSkills #MedicalEducation #LiteratureSearch #InformationSpecialists #ResearchTraining #QMedIndia
