The trouble with a peer-reviewed flag is that it is not the guarantor
of research quality that many might expect it to be.
It will be set as much for an extended abstract of a position paper in
the East Anglian Regional Workshop on Flood Awareness as it will be
for an article on Cosmology in Nature. It will be set whether one
person gives the article a quick going over and says "alright", or
whether five people review it thoroughly and provide detailed feedback
about its weaknesses.
In other words, the question is not so much "has it been peer-
reviewed" but "has it been peer-reviewed to the standard that the
reader thinks appropriate". And that information is usually derived
from a knowledge of the publication outlet.
On 29 Feb 2008, at 21:30, Frances Shipsey wrote:
> Yes I agree that it's essential and is seen as a key concern for
> academic staff (as a group of them were telling me only yesterday).
> Authors should generally know the status of their own material I
> We use the refereed/unrefereed flag offered by the EPrints software.
> I can see a potential need for three (or four) categories relating to
> peer review:
> 1. Pre-peer reviewed (= submitted version of an article to a
> peer-reviewed journal)
> 2. Peer reviewed (= accepted version of an article to a peer-reviewed
> These would be earlier and later versions of the same type of academic
> content with readers able to take their chances with the pre-peer
> version based on their knowledge of the author, but alerted to serious
> academic articles - they would also look out for later versions if
> are flagged as *pre-* rather than *un-*refereed.
> 3. Non-peer reviewed (= article in an unrefereed journal)
> This third category would thus include material of a more popular/less
> academic nature and could incorporate the kinds of dissemination
> articles that authors write alongside their academic papers.
> And perhaps in light of Ian's comment below, a fourth to enable
> even where status is not known
> 4. Peer review status unknown
> Best wishes
> Frances Shipsey
> eServices Librarian
> London School of Economics and Political Science
> 10 Portugal Street
> London WC2A 2HD
> t: +44(0)20 7955 6915
> f: +44(0)20 7955 7454
> e: [log in to unmask]
> w: www.lse.ac.uk/library
> LSE Research Online - http://eprints.lse.ac.uk - Enhance your research
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Stuart
> Sent: 29 February 2008 21:20
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Required and Desirable metadata in a repository
> Hubbard Bill wrote:
>> Does this agree with other colleagues' experience? Is a p-r field
>> required to facilitate future use of the material?
> The flip-side of this argument goes thus:
> If the p-r field is required, should a Repository not accept any
> where that field is not present?
> For example, I am looking at ways of harvesting via Google Scholar,
> GS does not hold p-r details. Should I do something like only accept
> deposits that are sourced from known journal repositories?
> (I'd also be interested in how many repositories *currently* support
> p-r field?)
> Ian Stuart
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm