Trouble with Taylor&Francis translator date (Updated Info)

DWL-SDCA
Please see:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2013.871995

The date of the item that is brought into Zotero is not the publication date but the online date.

Thanks
  • adamsmith
    Y1 - 2013/12/16
    PY - 2013
    DA - 2015/01/02

    That's clearly a problem on their part (DA is for date accessed). I don't think this is the type of thing we want to fix since the chances of breaking correctly entered data are just too big. Contact T&F, please.
  • DWL-SDCA
    edited December 7, 2014
    edited for grammar

    I heard back from T&F concerning the publication dates in the metadata for their articles. (See below.) I do not like their position and I believe that it leads to incorrect metadata. Can Zotero address this problem?

    I wrote:

    Both the DC metadata in the header of journal article pages and the RIS download for import into personal bibliographic management software is wrong. The date provided is the date the articles were published online. The correct publication date for in-print articles is the date of publication of the journal issue. This creates a problem for those who wish to include proper citations to printed articles. Two examples: 10.1080/03601277.2013.768067 10.1080/10807039.2013.871995 I could provide many other examples from many of your journals.

    The online date is fine for ahead-of-print references. However, essentially all standard bibliographic styles require that citations to printed journal articles use the date that is associated with the publication of the journal issue after the article appears in print. Indeed, the examples you provide in your instructions for authors cite the _print_ publication date _not the online_ date. Please reply with an estimate of when this will be corrected. This volume / date mismatch has led to problems for my peers and for me. With best regards, David Lawrence

    I received this reply fro T&F:

    Dear David,


    Thank you for your email regarding publication dates.

    We have checked with our production team as promised by my colleague, Rachel, and have been informed that the publication date of the article is the date that the research is first made available, which might be in print or online.

    We have tried to make it clear when an article was first available which is especially important when the nature of the research has a significant commercial impact (eg in medical research). In these cases the date that the item was made available online can proceed the print article by months or years so knowing the online publication date is preferable.

    Hence we believe the publication dates to currently be correct and will not be making any changes at this time.

    Kind regards,

    Philip Burford
  • zuphilip
    DA is for date accessed
    @adamsmith: Isn't Y2 for the date accessed?

    However, I think it is enough if T&F interchange the dates PY and DA, i.e.

    PY - 2015
    DA - 2013/12/16

    That would be more consistent with their BibTeX file:

    @article{doi:10.1080/10807039.2013.871995,
    ...
    year = {2015},

    (I suggested somewhere to make a RIS validator to (maybe) prevent problems like this, but currently that is just an idea...)
  • aurimas
    Sorry I missed this before. It was not being handled correctly in RIS. Y1, which is a non-standard field, was overriding DA. Should be ok now.

This is an old discussion that has not been active in a long time. Before commenting here, you should strongly consider starting a new discussion instead. If you think the content of this discussion is still relevant, you can link to it from your new discussion.

Sign In or Register to comment.