Matthew Goddard
My feedback
23 results found
-
51 votes
Hello,
We will check with Factiva and review if technically we can add the CDI fields.
Kind regards,
Tamar Ganor
Content Product Manager
Matthew Goddard
supported this idea
·
-
38 votesMatthew Goddard
supported this idea
·
-
193 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Matthew Goddard
supported this idea
·
-
43 votesMatthew Goddard
supported this idea
·
-
52 votesMatthew Goddard
supported this idea
·
-
165 votesMatthew Goddard
supported this idea
·
-
104 votesMatthew Goddard
supported this idea
·
-
115 votesMatthew Goddard
supported this idea
·
-
128 votesMatthew Goddard
supported this idea
·
-
10 votesMatthew Goddard
shared this idea
·
-
40 votesMatthew Goddard
supported this idea
·
-
202 votes
AdminAdina Marciano
(Admin, Ex Libris)
responded
Thank you for the suggested idea. We see its value and will consider it in the future. This development requires integration with third-party providers, and we will need to investigate the possibility of this development.
Matthew Goddard
supported this idea
·
-
41 votesMatthew Goddard
supported this idea
·
-
34 votesMatthew Goddard
supported this idea
·
-
163 votesMatthew Goddard
supported this idea
·
-
34 votesMatthew Goddard
supported this idea
·
-
805 votes
Thanks for the examples - we will review them and discuss our options.
Best,
Tamar
An error occurred while saving the comment Matthew Goddard
commented
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.
-
17 votes
-
272 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Matthew Goddard
commented
When this idea was first suggested seven years ago, there was probably no good way to technically achieve this. There are now multiple solid sources of this data, from organizations willing to share it (Third Iron, Unpaywall, CrossRef, etc.). Data on OA articles in hybrid journals must be integrated into CDI - otherwise search results in Primo are woefully incomplete. This is an urgent problem, as an increasing portion of academic articles are published OA in hybrid journals.
-
64 votesMatthew Goddard
supported this idea
·
Wholeheartedly support this idea in principle. However, I would urge Ex Libris to implement this as an additional value in the access type field (current, perpetual, etc.), rather than a new field. It seems to me to fit well with the concept of "access type", and OA content does not fit perfectly into either of the current/perpetual buckets.
There are already too many disparate ways of flagging free/OA content, and another field is likely to make things even more confusing and difficult to manage.