For the third year in a row, Crossref hosted a roundtable on research integrity prior to the Frankfurt book fair. This year the event looked at Crossmark, our tool to display retractions and other post-publication updates to readers.
Since the start of 2024, we have been carrying out a consultation on Crossmark, gathering feedback and input from a range of members. The roundtable discussion was a chance to check and refine some of the conclusions we’ve come to, and gather more suggestions on the way forward.
In our previous blog post in this series, we explained why no metadata matching strategy can return perfect results. Thankfully, however, this does not mean that it’s impossible to know anything about the quality of matching. Indeed, we can (and should!) measure how close (or far) we are from achieving perfection with our matching. Read on to learn how this can be done!
How about we start with a quiz? Imagine a database of scholarly metadata that needs to be enriched with identifiers, such as ORCIDs or ROR IDs.
We’re in year two of the Resourcing Crossref for Future Sustainability (RCFS) research. This report provides an update on progress to date, specifically on research we’ve conducted to better understand the impact of our fees and possible changes.
Crossref is in a good financial position with our current fees, which haven’t increased in 20 years. This project is seeking to future-proof our fees by:
Making fees more equitable Simplifying our complex fee schedule Rebalancing revenue sources In order to review all aspects of our fees, we’ve planned five projects to look into specific aspects of our current fees that may need to change to achieve the goals above.
On behalf of the Nominating Committee, I’m pleased to share the slate of candidates for the 2024 board election.
Each year we do an open call for board interest. This year, the Nominating Committee received 53 submissions from members worldwide to fill four open board seats.
We maintain a balanced board of 8 large member seats and 8 small member seats. Size is determined based on the organization’s membership tier (small members fall in the $0-$1,650 tiers and large members in the $3,900 - $50,000 tiers).
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:
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
icon at the far right of the title