-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Review metadata #60
Comments
One thing I'm wondering about is whether we want to include proper (i.e. structured) bibliographic information. My answer preferences is yes, but interested to know what others think. We could include this the metadata.yml, e.g.
Or in a separate bibtex file, e.g.
It doesn't much matter which one, as it's easy enough to convert. My preference would be to keep it in the metadata. The benefits of including proper structured information are that:
Using the existing DOIs we should be able to retrieve information for many studies using some online tools, e.g. crossref or doi2bib. |
Discussion re bib data now in #64 |
Following review we agreed to:
|
This is happening next Tuesday at 10am. Can everyone take a look at the existing metadata and think about what more we might like to include? (ping @rachaelgallagher @snubian @jamesrlawson)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: