Related to that last retoot from @DoctorZen, I also think it’s counterproductive for library resources to have simple binary markers for “peer review,” as peer review indicates a process rather than a status (unlike ). I’ve had to clarify many times that yes, a journal overall includes peer-reviewed articles, but the particular thing on this screen is actually an editorial that’s not gone through the same sort of process.
Basically: binaries bad, almost all the time.
At the same time, I’m *~very much not~* a cataloging / resources librarian. I’d be super interested in learning whether / why this is generally considered a best practice, if it’s not just a common practice.
@foureyedsoul OH HEY RIGHT IN MY FEELINGS.
Short take as I'm heading out is that we/people/systems do this because there's SO much stuff and metadata about it and therefore we do the best we can, but marking peer review at a journal level is basically the worst for articles.
Saying a journal uses peer-review is fine because it engages judgment. But like... transitive properties are always ever a hot mess.
Scholar Social is meant for: researchers, grad students, librarians, archivists, undergrads, academically inclined high schoolers, educators of all levels, journal editors, research assistants, professors, administrators—anyone involved in academia who is willing to engage with others respectfully.
We strive to be a safe space for queer people and other minorities, recognizing that there can only be academic freedom where the existence and validity of interlocutors' identities is taken as axiomatic.
"A Mastodon profile you can be proud to put on the last slide of a presentation at a conference"
(Participation is, of course, optional)
Scholar Social features a monthly "official" journal club, in which we try to read and comment on a paper of interest.
Any user of Scholar Social can suggest an article by sending the DOI by direct message to @firstname.lastname@example.org and one will be chosen by random lottery on the last day of the month. We ask that you only submit articles that are from *outside* your own field of study to try to ensure that the papers we read are accessible and interesting to non-experts.