Hello,
We are still working on the best way to find ways to improve peer review accuracy in CDI.
This idea requires in depth analysis, and combining content and CDI teams to find a solution that will improve the current indication.
We are also working with the Content Working Group to discuss the different aspects of the options raised in this thread, and in other channels.
We appreciate your patience, and thank you for your input.
Kind regards,
Tamar

This may be an unpopular comment, but I'd be surprised if anyone is in a position to start systematically differentiating between peer-reviewed content WITHIN a journal without bringing in a lot of assumptions and guesswork.

Instead, my suggestion would be to make it clearer that this label is applied at the level of the journal. Our facet is already called "Peer reviewed journals", not "peer reviewed articles". Another improvement would be to somehow position the peer-reviewed label adjacent to the journal title, rather than alongside other article-level labels like "review article" and "open access" as it is now.

In February 2023 Ex Libris advised more sources of Peer-Reviewed information:

"In CDI, records are marked as Peer Reviewed if they are published in a journal that is marked as Refereed/Peer-Reviewed in Ulrich's Periodicals Directory (Ulrichsweb).
In addition to the journal-level indication from Ulrich's, CDI also provides a Peer Reviewed indication from few other providers’ source records: ERIC, Onepetro, Erau digitalcommons and Almandumah."

https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Content_Corner/Central_Discovery_Index/Documentation_and_Training/Documentation_and_Training_%28English%29/CDI_-_The_Central_Discovery_Index/140Peer_Reviewed_in_CDI

Frankly ulrichsweb "refereed" icon is not accurate at all. For instance, search for Ground water for sustainable development. This is a high impact journal, Q1 in scimago, and indexed in JCR. Yet, there is no "refereed" icon against it in ulrichsweb. This enourmously reduced my confidence in ulrichsweb's accuracy.

Hi Tamar,

Here are 3 use cases and some examples where peer reviewed information should certainly not be displayed. I can only support Emmanuelle's last sentence in her request.

Best regards,

François

-------------------------------

(1) BOOK REVIEW ITEMS.
I would not flag book reviews as peer reviewed even if they have been published in a PR journal. Book review type should be excluded from PR information.

Examples:

Review of: The Chinese Cultural Revolution Data Base
Schoenhals, Michael
The China Quarterly, 2003 (175), p.837
cdi_swepub_primary_oai_lup_lub_lu_se_7233d02b_0380_4fbf_928d_6879a5f61143

Korea under Japanese rule: history of Hokuchin
Toshio, Sakai ; Caprio, Mark E
Journal of Korean studies, 2009, Vol.14 (1), p.117-117
cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1536009119

Book Reviews
Applications of Mathematics, 1974, Vol.19 (5), p.366-370
cdi_crossref_primary_10_21136_AM_1974_103551

Referate
Walter, H ; Kunter, M ; Bullerdiek, J
Anthropologischer Anzeiger, 1993, Vol.51 (3), p.287-288
cdi_schweizerbart_primary_10_1127_anthranz_51_1993_287

Zwischen Berlin und St Petersburg: Die österreichisch-ungarische Außenpolitik unter Gustav Graf Kálnoky, 1881-1895
Rauscher, Walter ; Cornwall, M
Slavonic and East European review, 1996, Vol.74 (2), p.318-319
cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_38906182

A.J.E. HARMSEN, "Onderwys in de tooneel-poëzy. De opvattingen over toneel van het Kunstgenootschap Nil Volentibus Arduum" (diss. UvA). Rotterdam 1989 (Book Review)
Haas, A.S. de
Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 1992, Vol.108, p.83
cdi_proquest_journals_1791648603

Andrea Lupacchini -- La sensorialità dei materiali -- Franco Angeli, Milano, 2016 [book review]
Conti, Christina
Techne : Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment, 2018 (16), p.340-341
cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2172186496

(2) OLDER ITEMS
Since peer reviewing (as we know it now) has only been widely used since the middle of the 20th century? I find it a bit weird to indicated that articles from the 19th or early 20th centuries are peer reviewed. I would recommend Ex Libris to agree with the Content Working Group from which year a journal article could be flagged as peer reviewed or not.

Examples:

BEMERKUNGEN UEBER DIE ZUSTANDSGLEICHUNGEN DER ADSORBIERTEN PHASEN. II
Tamamushi, Bun-ichi
Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan, 1928, Vol.3 (6), p.142-146
cdi_proquest_journals_1450989454

The Week in Review
Journal of education (Boston, Mass.), 1915, Vol.82 (5), p.114-116
cdi_sage_journals_10_1177_002205741508200501

Reviews of Books
LITTLE, A. G.
The English historical review, 1922, Vol.XXXVII (CXLV), p.116-119
cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_ehr_XXXVII_CXLV_116

British Medical Journal
British Medical Journal, 1862, Vol.1 (65), p.337
cdi_bmj_primary_10_1136_bmj_1_65_337

Masthead
Astronomische Nachrichten, 1897, Vol.142 (23), p.fmi-fmi
cdi_istex_primary_ark_67375_WNG_KNDMJDSV_P

SCIENTIFIC NOTES AND NEWS
M, W F
Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science), 1898, Vol.7 (161), p.128
cdi_pubmed_primary_17798659

(3) LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
I think that letters to the editor(s) or replies to the editors should not be indicated as peer-reviewed either. Although those items are usually Articles in CDI, I understand they may be more complicate to isolate.

Examples:

letter to the editor
Assimon, Magdalene M. ; Pun, Patrick H. ; Wang, Lily ; Al-Khatib, Sana M. ; Brookhart, M. Alan ; Weber, David J. ; Winkelmayer, Wolfgang C. ; Flythe, Jennifer E.
Kidney international, 2022, Vol.102 (5), p.1191-1192
cdi_crossref_primary_10_1016_j_kint_2022_08_009

Letter to the editor
Zagarella, Samuel ; Bigby, Michael ; Sladden, Michael ; Popescu, Catalin
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2023, Vol.88 (1), p.e27
cdi_crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jaad_2019_03_061

Letter to the editor
Chen, Yonghao ; Wang, Chunhui
Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.), 2022, Vol.76 (2)
cdi_crossref_primary_10_1002_hep_32459

Letter to the editor
Lester, Cathy C ; Wu, Shengde ; Naciff, Jorge ; Laufersweiler, Michael ; Daston, George
Toxicological sciences, 2022
cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_toxsci_kfac111

Letter to the editor
Pluskiewicz, Wojciech ; Pietraszkiewicz, Franciszek
Osteoporosis international, 2022, Vol.33 (10), p.2229-2230
cdi_proquest_journals_2722602150

Reply to letter to the editor by Riquelme LF et al. entitled ‘IDDSI letter to the editor’
Rothenberg, Elisabet ; Bischoff, Stephan C. ; Thibault, Ronan
Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2022, Vol.41 (5), p.1142-1143
cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_03659887v1

Hi Tamar,

One particularly noteworthy example of PR misrepresentation relating to AIDS denialism is:

Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E. (1988) ‘Reappraisal of AIDS--is the oxidation induced by the risk factors the primary cause?’, Medical hypotheses, 25(3), pp. 151–162.
DOI: 10.1016/0306-9877(88)90053-9
CDI ID: cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78219233

All of the articles in this journal pre 2010 are not peer reviewed according to:
https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/5217839

It appears that there are over 9k inaccurate CDI example records for this single title:
https://librarysearch.cardiff.ac.uk/discovery/search?query=any,contains,1532-2777&tab=CSCOP_EVERYTHING&search_scope=CU_Search_ALL&vid=44WHELF_CAR:44WHELF_CAR_VU1&facet=searchcreationdate,include,1975%7C,%7C2009&facet=tlevel,include,peer_reviewed&offset=0

By marking non-peer reviewed, and in this case pseudoscientific content, as being peer reviewed, the content is being given undue validity by Ex Libris which could have implications on current research and scholarship.

Hello,
After reviewing this issue, we have decided to rebrand this as a content idea as this is more concerned with content analysis.
If you could please provide some examples for articles misrepresentation in the comments, it would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Tamar Ganor
Content product manager

Related: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/45614302-fill-the-gap-of-open-access-cdi-records-not-marked: Make the open access icon more accurate

+1

Users should be searching databases for peer reviewed articles because you still have to have a database subscription for them to obtain it. Other issues like EXACT SEARCH for ADVANCED SEARCH deserve more attention.

The correct link is https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Ulrich%27s/Product_Documentation/Searching/Ulrichsweb%3A_Peer-Reviewed_Refereed_Journals_and_Academic_Scholarly_Journals