Articles and journals are marked with the peer reviewed icon in Primo based on information extracted from Ulrichsweb (https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Ulrich%27s/ProductDocumentation/Searching/Ulrichsweb%3APeer-ReviewedRefereedJournalsandAcademicScholarlyJournals).
The Peer Review indicator can only be set at the journal level at the moment. If a journal is identified as peer reviewed, or refereed in Ulrichsweb, all articles from this journal will be shown with the peer reviewed icon in Primo.
However, not all articles in such journals are peer reviewed, meaning the icon sends the wrong information to user, and that this label is not reliable. It can further cause users to lose confidence in the system.
We would like Ex Libris to work on a solution to extract the peer review information individually from each resource, in order to avoid having book reviews, editorials, or simply non peer-reviewed articles being marked as such in Primo.

A user viewing a view that is associated with a particular library or campus should be able to view availability of physical items at that library or campus libraries in the brief results layout. This idea is primarily for institutions with multiple libraries and, especially, multiple campuses. Campuses are associated with libraries, and typically a Primo view will be associated with a campus.

Currently "best location" can only be set via the user's IP address. This approach works when users are at the location, but when a user is off-campus, the first location to show on brief results and full display is alphabetical. Providing control over which library is preferred at the view level would give that view's users a better understanding of their quick access to materials. We have done usability testing that showed users who did not see their library listed on a results page assumed that the material was not available at their library.

Note this request was made in a previous idea, https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/32961133-ability-to-select-which-location-appears-first, but Ex Libris considered it to be completed with the addition of IP-based Best Location.

Primo Central grouping is based on the existing FRBR workflow, including the grouping process at the database level (the way the Search engine handles grouping) and the Front End functionality. It is used to prevent duplicate records in the results list.

Unfortunately, many records are not added to FRBR groups because the system considers the metadata are not rich enough. With the increase of records provided by (Open Access) aggregators and repositories, the number of duplicate records will certainly not decrease.

Could Ex Libris improve the FRBR workflow for Primo Central records in order to reduce the number of duplicate results and consolidate the FRBR groups?

Examples of duplicate records:
Accuracy of prediction of gene content in large animal populations and its use for candidate gene detection and genetic evaluation
3 results (2 FRBR groups):
- TNproquest195858157 and TNfaoagrisUS201300875183
- TNcrossref10.3168/jds.2007-0231, TNscopus2-s2.0-42449094585, TNsciversesciencedirectelsevierS0022-0302(08)71293-1, TNmedline18349258
- TNorbi2268/23076

Linguistic symbiosis between event loop actors and threads
2 results (1 FRBR group):
- TNsciversesciencedirectelsevierS1477-8424(08)00024-9
- TNscopus2-s2.0-51649125887 and TNcrossref10.1016/j.cl.2008.06.005

Efficient control of transient wave forms to prevent spreading depolarizations
2 results (1 FRBR group):
- TNarxiv0705.3398
- TNscopus2-s2.0-39649117125, TNsciversesciencedirectelsevierS0022-5193(07)00579-6, TNcrossref10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.11.019, TNmedline18177900

Le traitement de la modalité épistémique dans les traductions françaises de On the Origin of Species de Charles Darwin
3 results:
- TNerudit1038687ar
- TNscopus2-s2.0-85017546223
- TN_proquest1870219718

Primo supports display of See references (not same as See Also) in browse headings, if those cross-references are in the bibliographic data ingested by Primo. There is no capacity to display See Also and Usage info from authority records, which are important so that users understand how and why certain terms, especially subjects, may be used.

We propose that See Also and Usage info display in the Browse headings.

Example headings and See Also and Usage info that does NOT currently display in Primo:

Blacks:

Search also under: subdivision Blacks under individual wars, e.g. World War, 1939-1945--Blacks; and headings beginning with the word Black

Here are entered works on blacks as an element in the population. Theoretical works discussing the black race from an anthropological point of view are entered under Black race.

It's possible this enhancement could be achieved through application of an API that interacts with Library of Congress systems. Display of narrow/broader terms would also be highly valuable.

The MARC 245 subfield p from the bibliographic record is not exposed to Primo. This means that the data in the b245p is not available to display to users in the My Account section of Primo, as part of the requesting process and on pull slips for items. This becomes important when the items have 245a data that is the same. For example, when a video game has the same name with more info in the 245p like the ones below.
b245a b245p
Angry birds. Star Wars
Angry birds. Trilogy
Assassin's creed. Brotherhood
Assassin's creed. Revelations
Batman. Arkham Asylum
Batman. Arkham city
Batman. Arkham origins
Call of duty. Black Ops
Call of duty. Black ops II

I would like to see the bib. 245 p added.

examples of issues attached.

For Alma / Primo customers in a consortial resource sharing network, when an item in an institutional view is checked out, in the brief results display, an RTA availability statement is replaced with a "Check Holdings" link. Upon clicking on the title and viewing the full display of the record, RTA is checked for all institutions, including the institution of the view the user is in, updating the RTA status. When the user clicks out of the full record, the correct status (e.g., Checked Out) displays in the RTA section of the brief record in the results list.

Users should be able to see, in their institutional view, that an item is checked out without having to "check holdings" and load the RTA for all institutions. RTA should be accurate even for checked out items when the brief results display loads after each search.