-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Outdated or buggy journal abbreviations data #2
Comments
That said, for that journal wikipedia says the ISO is |
The abbreviation used by PubMed is the "NLM Title Abbreviation", which I believe is the same as Looking at the online NLM journal record at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/255562, it doesn't appear to list a field for the ISO abbreviation. So based on your comment, it seems that the NLM catalog via |
@dhimmel not saying NLM used to have "proper abbreviations" (I don't know that), not sure which records have changed, just observing in this issue that in this repo's data the ISO abbreviations do have dots, but currently available records in NLM don't. Whether NLM's records are valid, is a separate question. I haven't researched which ISO abbreviation is "correct" :) |
I updated the NLM catalog export in 83577d4. I looked and I also updated the downstream scopus metrics in dhimmel/scopus@1c2f8aa. |
Not sure if the data is outdated or if there is a bug but some journals have outdated/invalid(?) iso abbreviations. Example from pubmed/J_Medline.txt:
Notice the
Iso
andMed
abbreviations (are the same), but in dhimmel/delays, they are different:N. Engl. J. Med.
(Iso) vsN Engl J Med
(Med) (notice the dots).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: