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.
@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.
@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.
@foureyedsoul metadata ... Thanks AutoCorrect
@platypus @foureyedsoul but metadata *is* better data amirite
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.