Wiley.com translator imports an online date instead of original publishing date

vitoshka

Hi,

I thought to report this as it seems to occur very often often.

Take this paper for an example:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1986.tb04559.x/abstract

The paper is imported with the year 2012 whereas it was published in 1986.

Thanks.

adamsmith

thanks for the report.
We might have to re-thing the Wiley translator - the original date of publication isn't in the metadata we use (the citation data for google scholar embedded in the header), though it's in the citation export.

Aurimas - thoughts on this?

aurimas

I think I rewrote this a while ago to use Embedded Metadata instead of doing additional HTTP requests to get the RIS or BibTeX files.

There is actually one meta tag in the header that contains the right date (citation_date), but because Wiley is duplicating the tags, we are ignoring that bottom section. I don't recall right now why we're ignoring the top vs the bottom, but I think the top usually had better metadata.

So, my thoughts on solving this are:

1) Contact Wiley and ask them to clean up their mess. HighWire was happy to fix problems, but I think someone already emailed Wiley about this meta duplication and they didn't respond favorably.

2) Figure out a better way to ignore duplicates. Authors are a main concern, since (A) they are supposed to be in separate tags and (B) some authors do normally appear multiple times.

3) Fetch BibTeX or RIS. Wiley is already quite slow since we're doing a couple HTTP requests for the PDF, but perhaps we can fetch the export file asynchronously.

EDIT: 2)(C) Wiley uses two different formats in their duplicated meta tags to present authors: one author per tag and then again all authors in one tag. This makes it difficult to detect, but it is possible.

aurimas

But then again, which date do you go with: online publication date or print publication date?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pmic.201100327/abstract
Online is earlier than print

Rintze

Print publication date. That's usually the date included in references.

adamsmith

what Rintze says - when there is a print date, the print date is always preferable.

If we (and by "we" I mean "you") can make 2) work that would be the best solution imho.

aurimas

I went with option 4). Manually set the correct publication date from within Wiley's translator. I don't think there are any other meta tags that we are ignoring, but I may have overlooked something.