Latest blog posts
Susan Collins
2025 February 27

The GEM program - Year Two 2024

We began our Global Equitable Membership (GEM) Program to provide greater membership equitability and accessibility to organizations in the world’s least economically advantaged countries. Eligibility for the program is based on a member’s country; our list of countries is predominantly based on the International Development Association (IDA). Eligible members pay no membership or content registration fees. The list undergoes periodic reviews, as countries may be added or removed over time as economic situations change.

...Find out more
Martyn Rittman
2025 January 29

Retraction Watch retractions now in the Crossref API

Retractions and corrections from Retraction Watch are now available in Crossref’s REST API. Back in September 2023, we announced the acquisition of the Retraction Watch database with an ongoing shared service. Since then, they have sent us regular updates, which are publicly available as a csv file. Our aim has always been to better integrate these retractions with our existing metadata, and today we’ve met that goal. This is the first time we have supplemented our metadata with a third-party data source.

...Find out more
Ed Pentz
2025 January 28

POSI 2.0 feedback

As a provider of foundational open scholarly infrastructure, Crossref is an adopter of the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI). In December 2024 we posted our updated POSI self-assessment. POSI provides an invaluable framework for transparency, accountability, susatinability and community alignment. There are 21 other POSI adopters. Together, we are now undertaking a public consultation on proposed revisions for a version 2.0 release of the principles, which would update the current version 1.

...Find out more
Dominika Tkaczyk
2025 January 08

Metadata matching: beyond correctness

https://doi.org/10.13003/axeer1ee In our previous entry, we explained that thorough evaluation is key to understanding a matching strategy’s performance. While evaluation is what allows us to assess the correctness of matching, choosing the best matching strategy is, unfortunately, not as simple as selecting the one that yields the best matches. Instead, these decisions usually depend on weighing multiple factors based on your particular circumstances. This is true not only for metadata matching, but for many technical choices that require navigating trade-offs.

...Find out more
  • Menu
search

Documentation

Missed conflict report

Learn more about conflicts and the conflict report. Conflicts are usually flagged upon deposit, but sometimes this doesn’t happen, creating a missed conflict.

A missed conflict may occur for several reasons:

  • Two DOIs are deposited for the same item, but the metadata is slightly different (DOI A deposited with an online publication date of 2011, DOI B deposited with a print publication date of 1972)
  • DOIs were deposited with a unique item number. Before 2008, DOIs containing unique item numbers (supplied in the <publisher_item> element) were not checked for conflicts.

The missed conflict report compares article titles across data for a specified journal or journals. To retrieve a missed conflict report for a title:

  1. Start from the browsable title list and search or browse for the title
  2. Click the Blue chevrons right icon icon at the far right of the title
  3. The missed conflict interface will pop up in a second window. Enter your email address in the appropriate field. Multiple title IDs can be included in a single request if needed

A report will be emailed to the email address you provided. This report lists all DOIs with identical article titles that have not been flagged as conflicts.

Page owner: Isaac Farley   |   Last updated 2024-July-22