Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Más de Crossref
Más de Crossref (20)
Último
Último (20)
Crossmark, an introduction for publishers
- 1. CrossMark an Introduction December 15th 2011 Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 2. CrossMark Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 3. CrossMark Content changes Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 4. CrossMark Content changes When it does, readers need to know Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 5. Content changes Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 6. erratum corrigendum updates enhancements withdrawals retractions new editions protocol updates notices of concern, etc. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 8. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 9. errata corrigenda updates enhancements withdrawals retractions new editions protocol updates notices of concern, etc. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 10. When content changes, readers need to know Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 11. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 12. Does this article have corrections? Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 13. Does this article have corrections? Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 14. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 15. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 16. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 17. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 18. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 19. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 20. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 21. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 22. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 23. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 24. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 25. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 26. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 27. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 28. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 29. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 30. What is CrossMark? Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 31. What is CrossMark? A logo that identi es a publisher- maintained copy of a piece of content Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 32. What is CrossMark? A logo that identi es a publisher- maintained copy of a piece of content Clicking the logo tells you Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 33. What is CrossMark? A logo that identi es a publisher- maintained copy of a piece of content Clicking the logo tells you Whether there have been any updates Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 34. What is CrossMark? A logo that identi es a publisher- maintained copy of a piece of content Clicking the logo tells you Whether there have been any updates If this copy is being maintained by the publisher Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 35. What is CrossMark? A logo that identi es a publisher- maintained copy of a piece of content Clicking the logo tells you Whether there have been any updates If this copy is being maintained by the publisher Where the publisher-maintained version is Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 36. What is CrossMark? A logo that identi es a publisher- maintained copy of a piece of content Clicking the logo tells you Whether there have been any updates If this copy is being maintained by the publisher Where the publisher-maintained version is Other important publication record information Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 37. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 38. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 39. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 40. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 41. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 42. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 43. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 44. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 45. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 46. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 47. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 48. What kind of Publication Record information could be available? Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 49. What kind of Publication Record information could be available? Funding disclosures Con ict of interest statements Publication history (submission, revision and accepted dates) Location of data deposits or registries Peer review process used CrossCheck plagiarism screening License types Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 50. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 51. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 52. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 53. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 54. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 55. CrossMark What do publishers have to do? Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 56. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 57. Participation is optional Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 58. Participation is optional Anything with a CrossRef DOI can have a CrossMark Online-early content, but not pre-prints Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 59. Participation is optional Anything with a CrossRef DOI can have a CrossMark Online-early content, but not pre-prints Participants must maintain their content keep CrossMark metadata up to date! adhere to logo display guidelines Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 60. Participation is optional Anything with a CrossRef DOI can have a CrossMark Online-early content, but not pre-prints Participants must maintain their content keep CrossMark metadata up to date! adhere to logo display guidelines Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 61. CrossMark Steps for implementation Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 62. 1. Create a CrossMark Policy Page Explain CrossMark, commitment to maintain the content Explain publisher policies on corrections, retractions, etc. De ne any custom metadata elds for the Record Tab Assign it a DOI for persistent linking Deposit the Policy Page Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 64. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 65. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 66. 2. Deposit CrossMark Metadata DOI of the content the CrossMark is being applied to DOI for the publisher’s CrossMark Policy Page DOI of any piece of content that is being updated Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 68. 3. Update CrossMark Metadata! <updates> <update type="correction" label="Correction" date="2010-03-24">10.5555/1571</update>! </updates> Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 69. 4. Record CrossRef DOIs in HTML page metadata Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 70. 5. Add CrossMark metadata to PDFs Minimum = DOI, CrossMark Domain Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 71. PDF Metadata Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 72. 5. Display and Link the CrossMark Logo Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 73. 5. Display and Link the CrossMark Logo On HTML article landing pages Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 74. 5. Display and Link the CrossMark Logo On HTML article landing pages In PDF articles Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 75. 5. Display and Link the CrossMark Logo On HTML article landing pages In PDF articles Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 76. 6. Decide on and collect additional metadata Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 77. What Does it Cost? Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 78. What Does it Cost? Cu rre Bac nt kfil con e c ten on t: 2 ten 0¢ t: 2 ¢ Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 79. What Does it Cost? Cu rre Bac nt kfil con e c ten on t: 2 ten 0¢ t: 2 ¢ Current Content = published in the past two years. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 80. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 81. Pilot now running Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 82. Pilot now running Additional pilot participants welcome Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 83. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 84. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 85. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 86. Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 88. Pilot now running http://crossmarksupport.labs.crossref.org Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 89. Pilot now running Additional pilot participants welcome http://crossmarksupport.labs.crossref.org Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 90. Pilot now running Additional pilot participants welcome Launch in April 2012 http://crossmarksupport.labs.crossref.org Thursday, 15 December 2011
- 91. Any Questions? http://crossmarksupport.labs.crossref.org http://www.crossref.org/crossmark kmeddings@crossref.org Thursday, 15 December 2011
Notas del editor
- Hello, welcome, thank you for coming today, etc. \nI am...\nToday&#x2019;s webinar is to introduce and explain the CrossMark service that CrossRef will be launching at the start of next year. CrossMark has been in the planning for some time now, and over the past year have being doing a lot of demos, and workshops and focus groups. Now that we&#x2019;re in pilot phase of the project we are running these sessions to give members a bit more information on CrossMark and what you will need to know about implementing the service if you wish to join. \n\n
- So in order to explain how CrossMark has come about, I&#x2019;m going to start with a couple of fairly simple and statements.\n\n
- So in order to explain how CrossMark has come about, I&#x2019;m going to start with a couple of fairly simple and statements.\n\n
- It&#x2019;s easy to think that once something is published that&#x2019;s it - the version of record is out there and that&#x2019;s how it&#x2019;ll stay. But we know it&#x2019;s not as simple as that....\n
- Many things can happen to content after it has been published. It can be corrected, enhanced, retracted or even withdrawn, and of course it&#x2019;s the publisher&#x2019;s responsibility to apply these corrections and updates to the literature that they publish. \n
- There has been quite a bit in the news recently about how research fraud may be on the rise, with suspected increases in plagiarism and other types of misconduct. This blog Retraction Watch started up just last year and is updated several times a week with reports of papers that are retracted from journals, for all kinds of reasons ranging from honest error to fraud and plagiarism. \n
- A couple of years ago now it was reported that in the past 20 years retractions have increased tenfold...\n
- But it&#x2019;s not just retractions that are a concern. Corrections are more common, and in the online world there are growing opportunities to enhance content, perhaps by adding source data or supplementary material after publication of the original article. It&#x2019;s fair to say that the majority of content won&#x2019;t change, but some of it will..\n
- and when this content changes readers need to know that it has changed. It could be that an update adds extra data or background information to an article, but it could potentially be more serious, with corrections to information that could alter follow-on research or even treatment. So it&#x2019;s important that this information gets out there. \n
- And it&#x2019;s also important that this information is disseminated effectively so that as many readers as possible are aware of the changes. With e-publications we&#x2019;ve moved beyond notices on bulletin boards, but there are still some problems that need addressing. \n\n
- One of these is consistency. This article in Science has a correction. It&#x2019;s flagged over here on the left of the abstract in red text so it&#x2019;s pretty easy to spot. \n
- But this one is a bit more subtle. There&#x2019;s nothing in the left of right hand columns, but instead this publisher has chosen to site the correction up at the top of the article here. \n
- And what about this one? Nothing obvious at the top of the page, or in the tool bars on the right...\n
- ...but if you scroll down the page a bit here&#x2019;s a correction located under the &#x201C;related articles&#x201D; heading. \n
- And then you have content that&#x2019;s being held offline - here&#x2019;s the PDF of the article we were just looking at. If you&#x2019;ve downloaded this to your laptop or device you&#x2019;ve got absolutely no means to know that there&#x2019;s a correction that has been issued for this article. You could go back to look at it weeks or months later and you&#x2019;d be completely oblivious to any updates or changes in its status. \n
- Which leads to a second problem, which is that there is often more than one version of an article available. Here we have an article from the Journal of Surgical Research which was retracted because it was found to contain plagiarised material. On the publisher&#x2019;s site it&#x2019;s flagged pretty clearly as retracted up here in the article title...\n
- If you search for this article in Google Scholar, however, the publisher&#x2019;s site isn&#x2019;t the first to appear - in fact it&#x2019;s the fourth listing\n
- The first result is an information sharing site for doctors where someone has posted the abstract, and here there&#x2019;s no mention of the retraction....\n
- The second is PubMed, and the retraction has made it on to the Pub Med copy, although it&#x2019;s not as obvious as it is on the publisher&#x2019;s site - it&#x2019;s not part of the article title but a separate link below.\n
- But what if you&#x2019;d come across the abstract somewhere else? Maybe through CiteULike, where again there&#x2019;s no mention of the retraction. \n
- Or there could well be a copy in the author&#x2019;s institutional repository... \nWith all of these options there&#x2019;s a reasonable chance that the reader isn&#x2019;t necessarily going to see the correction or retraction that the publisher has issued. \n
- Or there could well be a copy in the author&#x2019;s institutional repository... \nWith all of these options there&#x2019;s a reasonable chance that the reader isn&#x2019;t necessarily going to see the correction or retraction that the publisher has issued. \n
- Or there could well be a copy in the author&#x2019;s institutional repository... \nWith all of these options there&#x2019;s a reasonable chance that the reader isn&#x2019;t necessarily going to see the correction or retraction that the publisher has issued. \n
- Or there could well be a copy in the author&#x2019;s institutional repository... \nWith all of these options there&#x2019;s a reasonable chance that the reader isn&#x2019;t necessarily going to see the correction or retraction that the publisher has issued. \n
- Or there could well be a copy in the author&#x2019;s institutional repository... \nWith all of these options there&#x2019;s a reasonable chance that the reader isn&#x2019;t necessarily going to see the correction or retraction that the publisher has issued. \n
- These are all problems that we&#x2019;re looking to address with the launch of CrossMark\n
- So CrossMark. At its simplest it&#x2019;s a logo that publishers will apply to content that they publish. When a reader clicks on the logo they will quickly and easily be able to tell:\nThe best way to explain it is to show some examples. \n
- So CrossMark. At its simplest it&#x2019;s a logo that publishers will apply to content that they publish. When a reader clicks on the logo they will quickly and easily be able to tell:\nThe best way to explain it is to show some examples. \n
- So CrossMark. At its simplest it&#x2019;s a logo that publishers will apply to content that they publish. When a reader clicks on the logo they will quickly and easily be able to tell:\nThe best way to explain it is to show some examples. \n
- So CrossMark. At its simplest it&#x2019;s a logo that publishers will apply to content that they publish. When a reader clicks on the logo they will quickly and easily be able to tell:\nThe best way to explain it is to show some examples. \n
- So CrossMark. At its simplest it&#x2019;s a logo that publishers will apply to content that they publish. When a reader clicks on the logo they will quickly and easily be able to tell:\nThe best way to explain it is to show some examples. \n
- So CrossMark. At its simplest it&#x2019;s a logo that publishers will apply to content that they publish. When a reader clicks on the logo they will quickly and easily be able to tell:\nThe best way to explain it is to show some examples. \n
- I&#x2019;ll start with the most straightforward and likely scenario. An article on the publishers website with the CrossMark logo just above the article title here. \n
- Rolling your mouse over the logo brings up a text box that says Click to get updates and verify authenticity. And then when you click on the logo\n
- You see the CrossMark dialog box. And this is what most people will see - confirmation that the document is up to date, the CrossRef DOI link that will always point to the publisher-maintained copy, and a link to the publisher&#x2019;s policies. The box also tells the reader that Future updates - if any - will be listed below, so getting them used to the idea that if changes happen, this is where they can find them. \n
- The second example is of a corrected article - the one from Science that I showed earlier. Here, clicking on the logo brings up the same CrossMark dialog box...\n
- ..but with information that alerts the reader to changes. Updates are available for this document. It says that there is a correction and gives a link to the correction.\nYou&#x2019;ll also notice that this CrossMark box has an additional tab at the top here labelled &#x201C;Record&#x201D;\n
- This is where you can show additional metadata about the piece of content if you choose to do so. The publisher decides what to put here and can use these fields to define publication practices. You don&#x2019;t have to populate this tab at all if you prefer not to, and if you don&#x2019;t supply an additional metadata the tab simply won&#x2019;t sow. The fields are defined and labelled by the publisher, and there can be as many or as few as you choose. This particular data is just an example for our demo and isn&#x2019;t actually from Science, I should add. \n
- Here&#x2019;s another example with some different fields - again, specified by the publisher. \n
- These are a few of the other possible pieces of information that have come up when talking with publishers. CrossRef isn&#x2019;t going to advise on what publishers should display in the record box, but we expect that communities of interest may develop guidelines or best practices within different areas. \n\n
- These are a few of the other possible pieces of information that have come up when talking with publishers. CrossRef isn&#x2019;t going to advise on what publishers should display in the record box, but we expect that communities of interest may develop guidelines or best practices within different areas. \n\n
- These are a few of the other possible pieces of information that have come up when talking with publishers. CrossRef isn&#x2019;t going to advise on what publishers should display in the record box, but we expect that communities of interest may develop guidelines or best practices within different areas. \n\n
- These are a few of the other possible pieces of information that have come up when talking with publishers. CrossRef isn&#x2019;t going to advise on what publishers should display in the record box, but we expect that communities of interest may develop guidelines or best practices within different areas. \n\n
- These are a few of the other possible pieces of information that have come up when talking with publishers. CrossRef isn&#x2019;t going to advise on what publishers should display in the record box, but we expect that communities of interest may develop guidelines or best practices within different areas. \n\n
- These are a few of the other possible pieces of information that have come up when talking with publishers. CrossRef isn&#x2019;t going to advise on what publishers should display in the record box, but we expect that communities of interest may develop guidelines or best practices within different areas. \n\n
- These are a few of the other possible pieces of information that have come up when talking with publishers. CrossRef isn&#x2019;t going to advise on what publishers should display in the record box, but we expect that communities of interest may develop guidelines or best practices within different areas. \n\n
- This is example is an important one. This is a PDF that includes the CrossMark logo - a clickable logo. Providing the the user is online, when they click on the logo it will pop up a webpage...\n
- with the CrossMark dialogue box giving the latest status. This is an example where CrossMark is at its most useful, alerting the user to the fact that the document they have locally on their machine has updates. This is going to be the most common scenario in which CrossMark really provides the reader with a valuable service, as it&#x2019;s alerting them to something that they would otherwise most probably have missed. \n
- And finally a very rare use case. When a publisher submits CrossMark metadata they can opt to state that their content is &#x201C;domain exclusive&#x201D; - meaning that there are limited websites on which it can legitimately be hosted. Some publishers - particularly open access publishers, are unlikely to do this as they are happy for their content to be hosted in many places. Many non-OA publishers may have a large number of third parties that legitimately host their content and would rather not limit these domains and have to maintain a list of URLs for each piece of content. But others may have a very specific or limited set of websites where they expect their content to appear and will want to alert the reader if they should happen to come across the HTML content on a third party site that they have not officially authorised. So if the publisher has chosen to be domain exclusive and the user comes across an HTML page of their content on another site, such as here, where this publisher&#x2019;s article is on someone else&#x2019;s website...\n
- then the CrossMark information will include this message stating that the content is on an unknown website, and giving a link back to the publisher&#x2019;s site to look at the maintained copy of the document. \nAs I said this is going to be a pretty rare case when a publisher&#x2019;s HTML pages have been copied and hosted on another site that they don&#x2019;t know about - but should it happen then CrossMark will point it out to the reader. , I would stress here that CrossMark is not intended to be any kind of Digital Rights Management and isn&#x2019;t offering any kind of protection against content being illegitimately hosted, but if the publisher wants to emphasise that there are limited domains on which their HTML content should be hosted, they can choose to do so. The default is for content to NOT be domain-exclusive.\nDomain exclusivity won&#x2019;t apply to PDF content, because once a PDF is downloaded there&#x2019;s no URL to check against. \n
- CrossMark data will be machine readable and query-able, so could potentially be used in search results to flag content that has status verification and possible additional information. And we&#x2019;ve also had some conversations with librarians about using CrossMark data to populate link resolvers by pulling back relevant information.\n
- So now let&#x2019;s take a look at what you actually have to do to implement CrossMark.\n
- The first thing is that you have to be a CrossRef member in good standing. But CrossMark is an optional service, so there is no requirement for CrossRef members to participate. \nCrossMarks can be assigned to any piece of content that has a CrossRef DOI. This can include ahead-of-print or early release copies that the publisher has made available and is committing to maintaining. CrossMarks should not be applied to author&#x2019;s copies or any other pre-print that is outside of the publisher&#x2019;s control and will not be maintained.\nSp by joining CrossMark you are agreeing to maintain your published content, and to keep it&#x2019;s associated CrossMark metadata up to date. We also have some guidelines on displaying the CrossMark logo. \n
- The first thing is that you have to be a CrossRef member in good standing. But CrossMark is an optional service, so there is no requirement for CrossRef members to participate. \nCrossMarks can be assigned to any piece of content that has a CrossRef DOI. This can include ahead-of-print or early release copies that the publisher has made available and is committing to maintaining. CrossMarks should not be applied to author&#x2019;s copies or any other pre-print that is outside of the publisher&#x2019;s control and will not be maintained.\nSp by joining CrossMark you are agreeing to maintain your published content, and to keep it&#x2019;s associated CrossMark metadata up to date. We also have some guidelines on displaying the CrossMark logo. \n
- The first thing is that you have to be a CrossRef member in good standing. But CrossMark is an optional service, so there is no requirement for CrossRef members to participate. \nCrossMarks can be assigned to any piece of content that has a CrossRef DOI. This can include ahead-of-print or early release copies that the publisher has made available and is committing to maintaining. CrossMarks should not be applied to author&#x2019;s copies or any other pre-print that is outside of the publisher&#x2019;s control and will not be maintained.\nSp by joining CrossMark you are agreeing to maintain your published content, and to keep it&#x2019;s associated CrossMark metadata up to date. We also have some guidelines on displaying the CrossMark logo. \n
- The first thing is that you have to be a CrossRef member in good standing. But CrossMark is an optional service, so there is no requirement for CrossRef members to participate. \nCrossMarks can be assigned to any piece of content that has a CrossRef DOI. This can include ahead-of-print or early release copies that the publisher has made available and is committing to maintaining. CrossMarks should not be applied to author&#x2019;s copies or any other pre-print that is outside of the publisher&#x2019;s control and will not be maintained.\nSp by joining CrossMark you are agreeing to maintain your published content, and to keep it&#x2019;s associated CrossMark metadata up to date. We also have some guidelines on displaying the CrossMark logo. \n
- \n
- Firstly you need to create a CrossMark policy page on your website. At it&#x2019;s simplest this page explains that you are a CrossMark member committed to maintaining the content that you publish. It should link to or explain your policies on corrections and retractions, and define any of the custom metadata fields that you are using in the Record Tab. \nYou need to assign this page its own DOI so that it can be linked to, and you need to deposit the page with CrossRef. \n\n
- We&#x2019;ve created a CrossMark Pilot mini-site that contains all of the practical and technical information that you&#x2019;ll need, and within that site there&#x2019;s a page on creating your policy page, including instructions on how to deposit policy pages. \n
- To show you an example, here&#x2019;s a publisher policy page that we&#x2019;ve had from one of our pilot participants the Royal Society. You can see that it&#x2019;s pretty simple, but links to the publishers&#x2019; correction and retraction policies. \n
- And here&#x2019;s another from Wiley - again, it has links to the publisher&#x2019;s guidelines for authors\n
- Then you need to create and deposit CrossMark metadata. This can be done on its own for backfile content or together with your regular DOI metadata for current content. \nThis is the minimum data\nDOI of content, DOI of Policy Page\nIf the metadata you are depositing is for a correction or update you need to include the DOI of the article that the correction relates to.\nThere is an additional piece of core metadata that you can submit if you choose to state that your content is domain exclusive, to explain again this means that there are a limited number of websites on which the HTML content can legitimately reside and you want to make readers aware if they come across the content elsewhere. If you choose to be domain exclusive you should list all of the authorised URLs for your content, including, of course, your own website.\nThe default setting for content is NOT to be domain exclusive, so that you don&#x2019;t need to maintain a list of authorised sites for all of the third parties that might legitimately host your abstracts, so this last field is optional.\n
- I&#x2019;m not going to get into details of showing XML deposit files and schema in this presentation, but you will find it all, including sample deposit files, on the pilot support site. The sample files are just being updated and should be back up in a day or two, but the documentation is all there. \n
- This perhaps goes without saying, but the CrossMark metadata needs to be kept up to date! IF an article is updated you must deposit CrossMark metadata for the update and tie it to the article or piece of content that is being corrected. \n
- You need to record the CrossRef DOi in your HTML metadata, and that is accomplished by simply adding this line of code. \n
- A certain amount of the CrossMark metadata must also be embedded in the PDF, at the very minimum the DOI of the piece of content, and the domain or domains on which the publisher-maintained copy of the content resides. \n\n(for google)\n
- We&#x2019;ve created a tool that will do this for you called PDF Mark - again I&#x2019;m not going to go into detail about this in today&#x2019;s presentation, but you can access the information from the CrossMark Support Site\n\nCovering all bases. DC and Prism. PDFX of particular interest to search engines. You should preferably use all of these to ensure best coverage. \n
- You need to display the CrossMark logo on the article landing page, ideally situated as close as possible to the article title, and outside of access control. On the CrossMark pilot site you will find information on the widget that can be inserted into HTML pages to add the logo and link it to the CrossMark dialogue box.\nThe CrossMark logo should also be added to PDFs. Black and white versions of the logo are available if required. We have another tool on the Support site that will help you to add the logo and link to PDFs. \nThere is no requirement to add CrossMarks to backfile if the publisher doesn&#x2019;t want to do so.\n
- You need to display the CrossMark logo on the article landing page, ideally situated as close as possible to the article title, and outside of access control. On the CrossMark pilot site you will find information on the widget that can be inserted into HTML pages to add the logo and link it to the CrossMark dialogue box.\nThe CrossMark logo should also be added to PDFs. Black and white versions of the logo are available if required. We have another tool on the Support site that will help you to add the logo and link to PDFs. \nThere is no requirement to add CrossMarks to backfile if the publisher doesn&#x2019;t want to do so.\n
- You need to display the CrossMark logo on the article landing page, ideally situated as close as possible to the article title, and outside of access control. On the CrossMark pilot site you will find information on the widget that can be inserted into HTML pages to add the logo and link it to the CrossMark dialogue box.\nThe CrossMark logo should also be added to PDFs. Black and white versions of the logo are available if required. We have another tool on the Support site that will help you to add the logo and link to PDFs. \nThere is no requirement to add CrossMarks to backfile if the publisher doesn&#x2019;t want to do so.\n
- This is the part that&#x2019;s possibly going to be a bit more of a challenge - you will need to decide what - if any - additional record metadata you want to display in the record tab, remembering that it is optional. \nAnd then you have to work out where that data is held and how you are going to bring it in to the publication workflow for deposit with you CrossMark metadata. You don&#x2019;t have to decide on and deposit additional metadata in the first instance- if you want to start with the basic CrossMark info and add Record metadata further down the line this is entirely acceptable, and will be treated as an update to your CrossMark metadata with no fees attached. \n
- Speaking of fees - there are some! CrossMark deposits will cost 20 cents per item for current content and 2c for backfile. There is no requirement to add CrossMarks to your backfile if you prefer not to. \n
- Speaking of fees - there are some! CrossMark deposits will cost 20 cents per item for current content and 2c for backfile. There is no requirement to add CrossMarks to your backfile if you prefer not to. \n
- And the schedule for CrossMark - we&#x2019;ve got a number of publishers working with us on the pilot at the moment - the four listed here are in the process of getting us some metadata and will be placing the logos on some of their journals. We recently had a second call for pilot participants which brought in another four or five publishers who are currently at various stages of implementation\n
- And the schedule for CrossMark - we&#x2019;ve got a number of publishers working with us on the pilot at the moment - the four listed here are in the process of getting us some metadata and will be placing the logos on some of their journals. We recently had a second call for pilot participants which brought in another four or five publishers who are currently at various stages of implementation\n
- And the schedule for CrossMark - we&#x2019;ve got a number of publishers working with us on the pilot at the moment - the four listed here are in the process of getting us some metadata and will be placing the logos on some of their journals. We recently had a second call for pilot participants which brought in another four or five publishers who are currently at various stages of implementation\n
- ...the first of the pilot participants to have CrossMark live was VGTU and you can see CrossMarks on their journal Business Theory and Practice. We expect to have several more examples up and running in the next few weeks. \n
- We&#x2019;re looking to launch CrossMark officially at the start of 2012, but if you&#x2019;re interested in joining the pilot ahead of then please do drop me a line, \n
- \n