Matthew Goddard
My feedback
19 results found
-
33 votes
Matthew Goddard supported this idea ·
-
116 votes
Matthew Goddard supported this idea ·
-
235 votes
Matthew Goddard supported this idea ·
-
202 votes
Matthew Goddard supported this idea ·
-
7 votes
Hello,
We will reach out to ASME for the collection metadata and setup.
Kind regards,
Tamar Ganor
Content Product Manager
Matthew Goddard supported this idea ·
-
41 votes
Matthew Goddard supported this idea ·
-
4 votes
Hi,
We will reach out to IOP and ask for the metadata for this collection.
Regards,
Rachel
Senior Content Support Analyst
Matthew Goddard supported this idea ·
-
5 votes
Matthew Goddard supported this idea ·
-
26 votes
Matthew Goddard supported this idea ·
-
156 votes
-
33 votes
-
799 votes
Thanks for the examples - we will review them and discuss our options.
Best,
Tamar
An error occurred while saving the comment -
17 votes
-
62 votes
AdminTamar Ganor (Admin, Ex Libris) responded
Hello,
This idea has been closed by mistake, I apologize for the inconvenience.
It will be reviewed and addressed according to the regular workflow of content requests.
My sincere apologies.
Kind regards,
Tamar Ganor
Content Product Manager
-
277 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.
-
60 votes
Matthew Goddard supported this idea ·
-
69 votes
-
78 votes
-
68 votes
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.