Leonard Mada wrote:
...
Regarding document type, there are broadly 2 large categories of
documents, and therefore I am strongly against some of the droppibngs:
A. Peer-Reviewed Documents
B. NON-Peer-Reviewed Documents
So, you cannot mix everything in the article category, there are really
different things:
This is an interesting argument, though I'm not sure I agree with you
entirely.
A. Peer-Reviewed
=============
This is basically the article and many more standard documents.
Books are often peer-reviewed also, as are conference presentations (you
submit an abstract and can only present if approved by a committee).
This suggests it's a property rather than a type.
B. NON-Peer-Reviewed
=================
[Some structure is still needed as I mix medium with document type, too.]
1. Book
As above. Moreover, we often can't know that one book is peer-reviewed
and another not without doing some research into the publication
process. This is the same for journal article metadata; information
about review is typically not available.
2. Periodicals
2.1.Newspaper article (else like an article)
2.2. Non-peer reviewed journal article (else like an article) or Magazine
So why not just call this a generic Document?
2.2'. Exclusively Online Journal (non-peer reviewed)
It's still a Journal, and some of them are peer-reviewed. Indeed, I have
done many reviews for one exclusively online journal. Seems easier to
just call it a Journal.
3. Internet page (NOT really like an article)
Document. I am talking at the level, BTW, of the RDF model, not
necessarily what you see in your application.
[some peer-reviewed articles are published exclusively on the net, BUT
those do NOT fit in this category]
4. Letter (true letter)
Which is what; something on paper?
5. Personal communication [includes phone/ whatever communication]
6. many other types
6.1 Manuscript
7. Specialized Types
7.1 Court / Law
7.2 Patents
QUESTION
=========
Should 'Book'also be split into more categories:
a.) non-peer reviewed book (e.g. a novel, single author, whatever else)
b.) speciality book with an editor => therefore peer-reviewed
c.) anything else NOT easily fitting in the previous 2 categories
I will think more thoroughly about the problem tomorrow. Though,
recognising the 2 main categories, aka *peer-reviewed* vs *non
peer-reviewed*, is critical because every scientist will put so much
different weight into these different types of evidence.
This is where we get to the crux of the matter; how do we encode the
metadata in such a way so that we can assess rigor?
On my tenure application, I have to list peer-reviewed vs.
non-peer-reviewed publications. But that alone isn't enough to get my
tenure approved. I also have to include evidence about the general
quality of the journals I publish in.
So I think we can gauge that information by knowing we have an article
published in a journal. What is essential is the Journal.
We can also do it with some property if necessary; maybe reusing our
status property. See for example:
<http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/EPrints_Application_Profile#Status>
Bruce
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
