LinkedIn emplea cookies para mejorar la funcionalidad y el rendimiento de nuestro sitio web, así como para ofrecer publicidad relevante. Si continúas navegando por ese sitio web, aceptas el uso de cookies. Consulta nuestras Condiciones de uso y nuestra Política de privacidad para más información.
LinkedIn emplea cookies para mejorar la funcionalidad y el rendimiento de nuestro sitio web, así como para ofrecer publicidad relevante. Si continúas navegando por ese sitio web, aceptas el uso de cookies. Consulta nuestra Política de privacidad y nuestras Condiciones de uso para más información.
Think when something is published that’s it but it’s not as simple as that…
Many things can happen post publication – publisher’s responsibility to apply these updates to the literature they publish.
There is also the big issue of trust for scholarly literature. Changes in content, if handled correctly, can enhance trust but if they aren’t handled well, they can undermine trust. Study to determine the accessibility of retracted articles residing on non-publisher websites and in personal libraries.Non-publisher websites provided 321 publicly accessible copies for 289 retracted articles: 304 (95%) copies were the publisher' versions, and 13 (4%) were final manuscripts. PubMed Central had 138 (43%) copies; educational websites 94 (29%); commercial websites 24 (7%); advocacy websites 16 (5%); and institutional repositories 10 (3%). Just 15 (5%) full-article views included a retraction statement. Personal Mendeley libraries contained records for 1,340 (75%) retracted articles, shared by 3.4 users, on average.
But it’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’s fair to say that the majority of content won’t change, but some of it will.
And it’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’ve moved beyond notices on bulletin boards, but there are still some problems that need to be addressed.
One of these is consistency. This article in Science has a correction. It’s flagged over here on the left of the abstract in red text so it’s pretty easy to spot.
But this one is a bit more subtle. There’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.
And what about this one? Nothing obvious at the top of the page, or in the tool bars on the right...
...but if you scroll down the page a bit here’s a correction located under the “related articles” heading.
And then you have content that’s being held offline - here’s the PDF of the article we were just looking at. If you’ve downloaded this to your laptop or device you’ve got absolutely no means to know that there’s a correction that has been issued for this article. You could go back to look at it weeks or months later and you’d be completely oblivious to any updates or changes in its status.
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 plagiarized material. On the publisher’s site it’s flagged pretty clearly as retracted up here in the article title...
If you search for this article in Google Scholar, however, the publisher’s site isn’t the first to appear - in fact it’s the fourth listing
The first result is an information sharing site for doctors where someone has posted the abstract, and here there’s no mention of the retraction....
The second is PubMed, and the retraction has made it on to the Pub Med copy, although it’s not as obvious as it is on the publisher’s site - it’s not part of the article title but a separate link below.
But what if you’d come across the abstract somewhere else? Maybe through CiteULike, where again there’s no mention of the retraction.
Or there could well be a copy in the author’s institutional repository... With all of these options there’s a reasonable chance that the reader isn’t necessarily going to see the correction or retraction that the publisher has issued.
A huge problem is PDFs - what if I download a PDF to my computer when the article is published and then open it up a few months later after a correction has been made - how do I know if there’s been a correction?
These are all problems that we’re looking to address by launching CrossMark – best way to explain it is to show examples
I’ll start with the most useful common scenario. We’re looking at a PDF from the Journal of Applied Crystallography. This came from my hard drive. Or I downloaded it from the author’s web site. Or was it my university’s institutional repository? Maybe somebody emailed me a copy? No, wait, I think this was from my Mendeley account. And when was that?At any rate, you see there is a CrossMark logo in the upper left corner. Providing I am online, when I click on the logo it will pop up a webpage...
with a pop-up dialogue box giving the latest status. 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’s policies. There are no updates. This time.... (click) And 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.But what if there had been a correction?
No Google example yet, but Microsoft Academic Search has already integrated CrossMark. If you look at your search results, you can see the CrossMark logo appear which should direct users to the publisher copy. Other affiliates are welcome to integrate this functionality as they wish.
Also talking to papers – can query CM data as it’s freely available and incorporate it into different systems.
Utopia docs are leveraging the CrossMark metadata using their PDF tools.
W-B and AIP examples. MENTION CHARGES!!
How CrossRef are supporting it.
Introduction to CrossMark for Affiliates and Hosts
CrossMarkforAffiliates & HostsJune 2013
Content changesWhen it does, readers need to knowCrossMark
• A logo that identifies a publisher-maintainedcopy of a piece of content• Clicking on the logo tells you:• Whether there have been any updates• If this copy is being maintained by thepublisher• Where the publisher-maintained version islocated• Other important publication recordinformationWhat is CrossMark?
What kind of Publication Recordinformation could be available?Funding disclosuresConflict of interest statementsPublication history (submission, revision andaccepted dates)Location of data deposits or registriesPeer review process usedCrossCheck plagiarism screeningLicense typesand more...
What do publishers andtheir hostshave to do?CrossMark
Participation is optionalAnything with a CrossRef DOI can have aCrossMarkOnline-early content, but not pre-printsParticipants mustmaintain their contentkeep CrossMark metadata up to date!adhere to logo display guidelines
1. Create a CrossMark PolicyPageExplain CrossMark, commitment to maintain thecontentExplain publisher policies oncorrections, retractions, etc.Define any custom metadata fields for the RecordTabAssign it a DOI for persistent linkingDeposit the Policy Page
Pilot running since summer 2011CrossMark launched on 27th April 2012Over 80,000 CrossMark deposits since launchwith 450 plus updatesWorking with over 20 publishers on CrossMarkimplementation including Elsevier, Wiley, AIP, OUPand The Royal Society
Marketing Microsite availablehttp://www.crossref.org/crossmark/index.html•Banner ads for publisher/host use