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 :OpenAccess: ). 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.


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.

@foureyedsoul We briefly experimented with trying to direct people towards peer reviewed materials before we realized it was a losing battle in terms of the available better data.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Scholar Social

Scholar Social is a microblogging platform 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.