Gabriel: It seems to me that "peer-reviewed" has more to do with the concept of approval as a step in the publishing process than it does with either type or description. Peer review is one method of assuring that the information has been "approved" for publication according to the publisher's criteria.
In the Government of Canada Records Management Metadata Element Set, there is an element called "approved by". Even if you don't use this element name, I think the concept is sound for your purpose. A possible value for you could be could be "peer" or "peers". Here is a link to this element: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/information-management/002/007002-5002.19-e.html
IM Strategies | Stratégies de la gestion de l'information
Chief Information Officer Branch | Direction du dirigeant principal de l'information
Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat | Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor du Canada
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0R5
613-946-6280 | [log in to unmask] | facsimile/télécopieur 613-946-9342
From: General DCMI discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Farrell,Gabriel
Sent: June 18, 2007 12:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Identifying peer-reviewed articles
I recently raised the question on oai-implementers as to how items in
our DSpace repository might best be labeled to distinguish those that
are peer-reviewed. I received a variety of responses, including the
* add a dc.description.peerreviewed field with value "Peer
* add dc.description.PeerReview with values "is peer reviewed"
"is not peer reviewed"
* dc.type="preprint" before review, dc.type="article" after
* the addition of "; peer-reviewed" to the value of the dc.type
* the incorporation of eprints.status="PeerReviewed" or
eprints.status="NonPeerReviewed", as recommended in the
I noted that I happened upon the UK dc.type qualifier vocabulary. My
institution could use that vocabulary for our dc.type values since all
of our peer-reviewed items are already labeled as dc.type="Article". We
could then reserve dc.type="Unrefereed Article" for the rare occasion
when a published article is not peer-reviewed. Our main concern, after
all, is the differentiation of peer-reviewed articles from theses and
preprints. There are cases, however, where this strategy breaks down,
such as preprints that have passed the peer-review stage. Also, I would
want to make the peer-reviewed status more clearly evident.
I believe the solution with the easiest implementation and best
cross-repository compatibility is the addition of a second dc.type field
with values "PeerReviewed" or "NonPeerReviewed", as suggested by Powell,
Day, and Cliff. A search on oaister.org for "peerreviewed"
reinforces this conclusion. 72,851 records with Resource Type:
PeerReviewed are returned (39,309 for "nonpeerreviewed"), suggesting a
de facto standard.
Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
Library Systems Developer
[log in to unmask]
+1 215 895 1871