How can we improve Primo?

← Primo

Review content type in Primo is confusing

Currently the Review content type in Primo / Primo Central seems to contain both Book Reviews such as
http://shu-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44SHUVU1:defaultscope:TNsciversesciencedirectelsevierS0261-5177(06)00203-2

and Review Articles such as
http://shu-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44SHUVU1:defaultscope:TN_proquest1373464971

It would be better if these were in separate content types.

140 votes
Vote
Sign in
(thinking…)
Sign in with: Facebook Google
Forgot password?
Create a password
Signed in as (Sign out)
Close
Close
You have left! (?) (thinking…)
Caroline Thorpe shared this idea  ·   ·  Admin →

15 comments

Sign in
(thinking…)
Sign in with: Facebook Google
Forgot password?
Create a password
Signed in as (Sign out)
Close
Close
Submitting...
An error occurred while saving the comment
  • veerle.kerstens@kuleuven.be commented  · 

    Although I previously supported the idea that it is better to have just one resource type “Book Review” than two different types mixed in the facet “Reviews”, I now agree with Katrine.
    I got complaints of teaching staff that students can no longer filter on Review Articles. Their practice was to filter on “Peer reviewed” and “Reviews” in order to limit on Review articles. In certain disciplines, students that need to find information on a topic that is new for them, should start with a review article. Now, too many results are found.
    A teacher let me know that she would now advice her students to start their search in other databases, where they can filter on Review articles.
    That's a pitty.

  • Katrine Aronsen commented  · 

    When CDI was implemented there was some changes in resource types relevant to this idea.
    The resource type/content type review no longer contains both book reviews and review articles:
    https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Content_Corner/Central_Discovery_Index/Documentation_and_Training/010CDI_-_The_Central_Discovery_Index/070Resource_Types_in_CDI

    So in a way one could claim that the problem is solved.
    However the solution where review articles has been removed from content type review means that it is no longer possible to limit a search in primo to review articles.

    For health related searched and increasingsly also in other research disciplines it is an important tool to be able to navigate in the "sea of research" - being able to sort out review/systematic review articles.

    As the idea is still "under review" does this mean that ex.libris it still working on a solution?

    We really need a limit for review articles much more that the need for a book-review limit.

  • Coleen Neary commented  · 

    Having book review as its own content/resource type is a step backwards as this is functionality that works in Summon so why not in Primo? And the advanced search options also need work!

  • François Renaville commented  · 

    I would also appreciate if Ex Libris could clarity their intentions with this idea. It has been under review for more than 19 months now and the August release lowering the ranking of reviews makes this idea even more relevant than ever. Thanks in advance!

  • Deborah Fitchett commented  · 

    Further feedback on this: because the review type currently contains 2 things we're really concerned about the August release lowering the ranking of reviews. Book reviews should be ranked lower than the books they review - but systematic reviews are exceptionally valuable (we've seen lecturers enthusiastically praising the "Review" facet to their students because they're assuming it's only literature reviews) and shouldn't be ranked lower.

  • Deborah Fitchett commented  · 

    I think it would be useful for Ex Libris to confirm what their intentions are! I'd expect systematic reviews to come under "article", yes, but also see the value of it appearing under an additional "review article" or "systematic review" facet - just not under the facet that covers book reviews, computer reviews, car reviews, etc, which are entirely different.

  • Jakob Nylin Nilsson commented  · 

    Systematic reviews are found both under Articles and under Review. I think the reason that we find systematic reviews under Review is a misconception somewhere in the Primo Central Index normalization process. The Cochrane Library is normalized as Articles, so I think the intention of ExLibris is to have Systematic reviews under Articles. Don't you agree? However, I still think it would be nice with a special limit for Systematic reviews, preferably as a sub limit under Articles.

  • Katrine Aronsen commented  · 

    Review articles, like Systematic reviews are important document types in health sciences and also spreading to other "sciences", so we need a limit for review = review articles and NOT other reviews like book review mixed together

  • Barbara Swetman commented  · 

    I agree these need to be split but Book Reviews is too limiting. There are reviews of computer programs and games, web sites, electronic equipment, cars, and the like. Just as a test I found that review seems to be a useful limit on Honda Civic. Would users understand a distinction that is just Review and Review article? It seems to me that the users needing the review articles would get it.

  • Jakob Nylin Nilsson commented  · 

    Another solution would be two have some sort of hierarchy, e.g. you have to choose articles to be able to choose review articles. However, the most important part is that you follow the definitions of the content types. As it is now Primo Central Index has review articles as "articles" and as "reviews".

  • Krizia Tuand commented  · 

    I agree that this should be separate. But I wouldn't put review articles under the article content type. If you look, for example, at Pubmed filters, there, reviews are considered as separate from articles. A solution could be to have three content types:
    - articles
    - book reviews
    - review articles

  • veerle.kerstens@kuleuven.be commented  · 

    I voted for this idea because I find it confusing and misleading hat two very different contents like review articles and book reviews are in the same facet.
    If the issue can be solved by limiting the "reviews" facet by Book reviews only and and put the review articles in the facet "Articles", that's also fine with me. Maybe it's even better because there are already many resource types. Too many different resource types makes the facet less usable.

  • Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hi Keren - I think the 2 ideas are related in terms of the core problem that the Reviews resource type is meant to be specifically just Books Reviews, but actually isn't in practice. See: Primo Central Index Resource Types.
    We are currently on the 'old' UI and have a pre-filtered default search which excludes Reviews and Newspaper Articles, which is the end goal of the other idea.
    I share the desire for this resource type to be more firm and consistent but as we have that workaround in place I voted on this idea but not the other.

Primo: User Interface

Categories

Feedback and Knowledge Base

(thinking…)