Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

New Metadata Developments - Crossref LIVE South Africa

55 visualizaciones

Publicado el

Chuck Koscher presents the new metadata developments at Crossref including posted content, peer reviews and relationships. Presented at Crossref LIVE local events in Pretoria and Cape Town, 17th and 19th April 2018.

  • Sé el primero en comentar

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

New Metadata Developments - Crossref LIVE South Africa

  1. 1. New Metadata Developments
  2. 2. Here now •posted content •peer-reviews •relationships
  3. 3. Posted content (aka preprints)
  4. 4. It’s important to clearly label the content as a preprint using a preprint-specific schema. It’s not advisable to register preprints as data, components, articles, or anything else, because a preprint is not any of those things. Our service allows you to ensure the relationships between preprints and any eventual article are asserted in the metadata, and accurately readable by both humans and machines.
  5. 5. The pre-print host must link to the peer reviewed article if one exists. Crossref provides services to pre-print publishers helping identify the existence of a peer reviewed copy Crossref gives preference to the peer reviewed article when distributing DOIs
  6. 6. peer reviews
  7. 7. Crossref worked with our members to launch Peer Review Metadata:
  8. 8. New content type: Reviews • Assets across peer review history for any and all review rounds: referee reports, decision letters, and author responses • Pre & post publication • Dedicated metadata • characterizes peer review asset: recommendation, type, license, contributor info, competing interests • makes the review process transparent: pre/post-publication, revision round, review date
  9. 9. Research publication Review Review Review Article/ preprint/etc. metadata about the review process Metadata about the review
  10. 10. Metadata for reviews • Party registering review content • DOI of review • Identifier of publication reviewed and link to it (relationship) • Review stage (pre or post-publication) • Title of review • Date of review • Person or organization: Name, ORCID, Affiliation, Role (Reader, Reviewer, Editor, Assistant to reviewer, Stats reviewer, Author, External commenter) • Review type (Referee Report, Editor Report, Author Comment, Community Comment) • License • Competing interest • Recommendation (major-revision, minor-revision, reject, reject-with-resubmit, accept) • Running number/ review identifier (Internal number/identifier used to identify specific review) • Revision round (Revision round number, first submission defined as revision round 0)
  11. 11. Publishers registering peer reviews (as of 23 Jan 2018): • 10.7287 - PeerJ (9544 reviews • 10.21468 - SciPost, (317 reviews) • 10.14293 - ScienceOpen (125 reviews) Since launch Nov 2017: 9986 reviews total, pre and post-publication Current peer reviews registered
  12. 12. relationships
  13. 13. Data DOI=10.15763/DBS.SCCSC.RR.0002
  14. 14. Data DOI=10.1175/2011JCLI4083.1
  15. 15. The source data DOI’s metadata automatically reflects the relation claim
  16. 16. coming •pending publications •grant IDs •conference IDs •JATS deposits
  17. 17. Pending content
  18. 18. Current Issues • broken links from unregistered DOIs undermine trust in persistent links and availability of content • publishers- • cannot meet funder mandates that focus on acceptance point for reporting • advance publicity & press leave out DOIs or lead to broken links • researchers - cannot provide evidence of all publications in grant and employment applications • funders & institutions - cannot fully track research they support
  19. 19. Soon Acceptance Publication Pending Content Registration • DOI is ‘live’ • Intent to publish statement displayed (Crossref-hosted) Full Content Registration • DOI resolves to publication • Intent to publish statement is replaced
  20. 20. Metadata Requirements Must include • DOI • Date of acceptance • Publisher name • Journal/Book/Conference title • "Intent to publish” statement (provided by publisher or Crossref in its absence) Should include • Funding information (Open Funder Registry) • ORCID iDs • License • Author affiliation • ISSN/ISBN May include • Publisher logo • Custom "intent to publish” statement • Item title (e.g. article title)
  21. 21. Grant IDs
  22. 22. Today’s lookup Funder “Dropdown list” icon by Andrejs Kirma, from thenounproject.com Department Award #
  23. 23. What about? Funder “Dropdown list” icon by Andrejs Kirma, from thenounproject.com Department Award #
  24. 24. Why? • Easier for authors to provide accurate information • Government funders change names a lot, it’s important to be able to redirect to them • Global grant identifier based on DOIs makes sense: overlaying global namespace on local identifiers will help guard against overlap (like credit cards) 
  25. 25. Next steps Funder Working Group running at Crossref. They’ve agreed that they’d like to proceed with this initiative. Pilot with Wellcome, NIH and JST. Next steps - business & fees group and a technology and metadata group being established. Hoping to move quickly on this. https://www.crossref.org/blog/global-persistent-identifiers-for-grants-awards-and-facilities/
  26. 26. Conference IDs
  27. 27. Motivation https://www.crossref.org/blog/taking-the-con-out-of-conferences/ Fake conferences that emerge, similar conference names
  28. 28. Next steps Sanity check to see if we can produce a data model and coordinate any work that is done on conference, project and organization identifiers. Joint Crossref/DataCite working group to specifically explore conference and project identifiers and determine how they relate both to each other and to our already ongoing work with ORCID on organization identifiers. Likely that the working group will discuss and explore how conference/project identifiers might be used for increasing the transparency of peer review at conferences, better attribution for programme chairs and program committee members, and how they might be incorporated into other services. Interested? community@crossref.org
  29. 29. JATS no Crossref schema needed, just send in the article file
  30. 30. Questions?
  31. 31. Thank You!

×