Managing Journals Names
How the NLM List works in the Manage Journals tab
How to use the NLM list when importing records
How to suggest corrections
Run Journal Name Scan
Journal name checking and editing is carried out in the Manage Journals tab, which is based on the
NLM Journal Authority List and non-NLM journal names that have been added manually. The list of
journals on the Manage Journals tab is not a list of all journals that appear in the records in a
segment.
How the NLM List works in the Manage journals tab
The CRS uses a journal authority list to check the SO (Source) field of imported records. When
importing a record with a value in the SO field the CRS first checks whether that value matches an
entry in the NLM authority list. If it doesn’t, the CRS looks in the list of “synonyms” that it holds for
each journal to see whether the imported SO field matched one of those. If it does, the CRS puts the
corresponding correct authority list journal name into the SO field and puts a copy of the actual
imported SO field value in the Original Source field. If no match is found, the SO field is marked as a
potential problem and the record will show a warning flag next to the field. For example, a title in the
master list is: Fundamental & clinical pharmacology. That master list item also has some synonyms
associated with it: Fundam Clin Pharmacol, Fundamental & clinical pharmacology, and Fundamental
and clinical pharmacology. If a record has Fundam Clin Pharmacol or Fundamental and clinical
pharmacology in the SO field this value will automatically be transformed into the authority list
equivalent, Fundamental & clinical pharmacology. The original content of the SO field in the imported
record is transferred to the OS (Other source) field that a record of the original value is kept.
The implementation of a journal authority list will aid in the cleaning of individual CRS segments and
CENTRAL, however during the development of the CRS the question arose as to whether to introduce
the NLM journal authority list or the authority list implemented in RevMan. The decision to implement
the NLM list was taken in consultation with the TSC Executive and based on the following
advantages:
1. The Cochrane Collaboration can take advantage of the maintenance work done by NLM on
the list which is updated regularly (the RevMan list has not been updated since 2008)
2. It is freely available and extensive - 22,000 titles vs. just over 8,000 titles in the RevMan list.
3. The current pick-list available to authors in RevMan would not have to change (although this
may be desirable in time)
However several disadvantages of implementing the NLM list were identified:
1. The NLM list is in sentence case format but the Cochrane style requires references to appear
in title case format
1
2. Some NLM journal names are over-long, with descriptions of the journal appearing at the end
of the journal name.
3. Many NLM journal titles contain leading definite and indefinite articles that conflict with the
RevMan style guide
4. The NLM journal titles contain commas that conflict with the RevMan style guide.
Fortunately the automatic conversion from sentence case to title case was relatively easy to carry out.
Metaxis did this, retaining sentence case in the CRS journal authority item, but allowing automatic
conversion to title case in the RevMan export style. They also globally removed all text after a colon.
The definite and indefinite articles were retained in the NLM list in the CRS so they could be used for
output if required, but removed for sorting purposes. Commas were also retained in the CRS journal
authority items so they can be used for output, but also removed when being exported to RevMan.
This machine conversion addressed many concerns but was not suitable for dealing with the problem
of translated journal titles which are represented in the NLM list as <Non-English title>. < English
title> whereas the RevMan style guide requires they are in the format as <Non-English title> [<
English title>]. As a result a one-off copy editing exercise was undertaken to correct the translated
titles and to check and edit the output of the machine conversion.
How to use the NLM list when importing records
When importing records into the CRS, particularly an entire specialized register, there will be a
number of records where the sources fields (usually a journal name) will not match. This could be
because it genuinely is a different source name, or it’s a synonym for an existing source name that
doesn’t appear in the NLM authority list. If unmatched source names are detected during import the
following screen will be displayed.
2
1. View unmatched source items
This option allows the user to add the incoming source names as synonyms to existing sources or
to add them as entirely new source names. The following points should be considered when
choosing this option:
a. This option is probably worthwhile using when there is a comparatively low number
of non-matching source name. In a file containing records that came from a
database like Medline, which stores the sources name in a format that matches the
journal master list and in which the source names have not been altered, there may
be very few or no mismatches.
b. If electing to add sources as genuinely new it is recommended that these be verified
through sources such as the NLM catalog, Ulrichsweb, online journal listings such as
Scimago, Google, etc. Remember that this process allows the journal to be added to
the local list even if it really isn’t a new journal.
3
c.
Mismatches with conference proceedings names will always appear here because
they are not in the NLM master list. Conference proceeding names can be added to
the local list but they will not go into the NLM master list. Adding these names means
those records are less likely to appear in the new records tab on import. If all
conference proceedings names are not required, select those which appear in the
greatest number of records to have maximum impact. Then either add the rest as
unmatched source names (+) or ignore them (click Continue)
d. If the decision to view unmatched source items is changed, there is a button to let
the user either accept all or reject all (i.e. the same as the two other choices shown
on the initial pop-up box). (See section on Run journal name scan below)
e. Once journals names have been added as new source names or synonyms, it is
recommended that a scan of all existing records be performed (see Run Journal
Name Scan below).
2. Add all unmatched source items as unverified
The assumption underlying this option is that all source names that don’t match are not
synonyms for anything else; i.e. that they are all new sources names. It allows records to be
dealt with in a less labour-intensive way than option 1. If this option is chosen the incoming
source names will all go into the local source list as unverified source names and appear in the
Unverified Sources tab in the Manage Journals tab. It is recommended that these sources
names be verified at some point to avoid treating a source name as unique when in fact it is a
synonym for an existing name from the NLM list. Also be aware that any records which contain
these unverified source names won’t be flagged as a mismatch because the names are in the
local list. Although there is no flag in individual records to say the source name might need to be
corrected, the source still appears in Manage Journals under the Unverified Sources tab.
3. Ignore unmatched sources items and continue with the import process.
Choosing this option allows all of the mismatched source names from the imported file to be
ignored, i.e. flagging that they are not synonyms for anything nor are they new sources names.
This option requires the least amount of effort. It also ensures that there is not a list of unverified
source names in the local list and therefore no risk of compounding any potential problems that
may have been introduced by accepting source names as new when they are in fact synonyms.
The disadvantage is that next time records are imported that have the same source names they
will once again be unrecognised. This will continue until either option 1 or 2 is chosen but can
also easily be ignored by always clicking option 3.
4
1. If Option1 is chosen, in the left hand frame there will be a list of source field values (e.g.
journal or conference titles) that do not match
2. Search for a highlighted name in the NLM authority list. It is sometimes useful to un-tick the
At journal start box so that words can be looked for anywhere in the title.
3. If the imported journal title does match an existing title in the authority list it can be added as
a synonym of the NLM authority list version. By adding to the list of synonyms for each
journal it improves the chances that the incoming source field values will match up with an
entry in the NLM list. In the long term development of the local list it will improve the quality
of the local segment and register records and these improvements will subsequently flow
through to CENTRAL.
5
How to suggest corrections
Directly editing or removing any journals from the authority list is not possible, but an error is
identified in an NLM journal name it can be reported by selecting the report error option.
A report journal error frame will be displayed that allows the user to submit a proposed title change
along with comments.
Run Journal Name Scan
If changes are made to the journal list (by adding new journals or by adding synonyms for existing
journals) an option is available to scan though all existing records and check that the SO field has
been checked correctly against the modified journal list. This is not done automatically because that
would make the process of making multiple changes to several journals unacceptably slow. Instead
there is the option to click the Run journal name scan to perform this check and make changes to
source field values where appropriate.
The same action can be performed during the import process. Once journals names have been added
either as new or as synonyms click the Process button to ensure the changes flow through to all
existing records as well as the ones currently being imported.
6