D-Net
/
dnet-hadoop
13
4
Fork 10
Code Issues 14 Pull Requests 8 Projects 2 Releases 1 Wiki Activity

Extending the coverage of the peer non-unknown refereed instances #342

Merged
claudio.atzori merged 3 commits from peer_reviewed into beta 2023-10-06 14:22:13 +02:00
Conversation 0 Commits 3 Files Changed 1 +35
claudio.atzori commented 2023-10-02 16:35:58 +02:00
Owner
Copy Link

This PR incorporates in the graph cleaning procedure the logic used in the stats DB to set the peer field result.instance[].refereed.

I am attaching the SQL currently in use to populate the result_peerreviewed table in the stats DB.

Note that the procedure operates only on the instances where the refereed field is set to unknown, hence it would not override and value set by the transformation rules, operating by vocabulary mapping on the original records. So, if I well read the SQL, on top of the existing peerReviewed and the nonPeerReviewed values, we would end up considering as non peer reviewed all the material that does not come (also) from Crossref. This is quite a strong assertion and I can imagine many cons, like discriminating all the peer reviewed journals that are not in Crossref... but let's discuss about it.

This PR incorporates in the graph cleaning procedure the logic used in the stats DB to set the peer field `result.instance[].refereed`. I am attaching the SQL currently in use to populate the `result_peerreviewed` table in the stats DB. Note that the procedure operates only on the instances where the refereed field is set to unknown, hence it would not override and value set by the transformation rules, operating by vocabulary mapping on the original records. So, if I well read the SQL, on top of the existing `peerReviewed` and the `nonPeerReviewed` values, we would end up considering as non peer reviewed all the material that does not come (also) from Crossref. This is quite a strong assertion and I can imagine many cons, like discriminating all the peer reviewed journals that are not in Crossref... but let's discuss about it.
alessia.bardi was assigned by claudio.atzori 2023-10-02 16:35:58 +02:00
claudio.atzori added 1 commit 2023-10-02 16:35:59 +02:00
claudio.atzori added 1 commit 2023-10-03 10:52:24 +02:00
claudio.atzori added 1 commit 2023-10-06 14:21:53 +02:00
claudio.atzori merged commit 11153742c9 into beta 2023-10-06 14:22:13 +02:00
claudio.atzori deleted branch peer_reviewed 2023-10-06 14:22:13 +02:00
claudio.atzori added this to the OpenAIRE - DNet project 2023-10-26 10:00:38 +02:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels   
bug

Something is not working

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
enhancement

New feature / refactoring

  
help wanted

Need some help

  
invalid

Something is wrong

  
question

More information is needed

  
RDGraph

EOSC Research Discovery Graph

  
RSAC

EOSC Research Software APIs and Connectors

  
wontfix

This won't be fixed

No Label
bug
duplicate
enhancement
help wanted
invalid
question
RDGraph
RSAC
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
OpenAIRE - DNet
Assignees
Clear assignees
No Assignees
alessia.bardi
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: D-Net/dnet-hadoop#342
No description provided.
Delete Branch "peer_reviewed"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?