Abstract: Research funders spend considerable efforts collecting information on outcomes of the research they fund. To help funders track publication output associated with their funding, Crossref initiated FundRef in 2013, enabling publishers to register funding information using persistent identifiers. However, it is hard to assess the coverage of funder metadata because it is unknown how many articles are the result of funded research and therefore should include funder metadata. In this paper we looked at 5,004 publications reported by researchers to be the result of funding by a specific funding agency: the Dutch Research Council NWO. Only 67% of these articles contain funding information in Crossref, with a subset acknowledging NWO as funder name and/or Funder IDs linked to NWO (53% and 45%, respectively). Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and Dimensions are all able to infer additional funding information from funding statements in the full text of the articles. Funding information in Lens largely corresponds to that in Crossref, with some additional funding information likely taken from PubMed. We observe interesting differences between publishers in the coverage and completeness of funding metadata in Crossref compared to proprietary databases, highlighting potential to increase the quality of open metadata on funding.
“The opening up of citation data is welcome. It means greater transparency and accountability for research studies designed to inform academics, funders and governments in their decisions about areas of research they should focus energy and money on.
But more is needed. Not all publishers index papers on Crossref, and not all indexed papers have citation data associated with them. One study published in July found that about one-third of papers indexed in 2021 are lacking such data (N. J. van Eck and L. Waltman. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/smxe5; 2022). Some of these articles — particularly editorials, letters, corrections and book reviews — might not have any references, but this by no means applies to all of them. Uploading citation data should not be seen as optional….”
I’m delighted to say that Martin Paul Eve will be joining Crossref as a Principal R&D Developer starting in January 2023. As a Professor of Literature, Technology, and Publishing at Birkbeck, University of London- Martin has always worked on issues relating to metadata and scholarly infrastructure. In joining the Crossref R&D group, Martin can focus full-time on helping us design and build a new generation of services and tools to help the research community navigate and make sense of the scholarly record.
The next few months mark a series of “10”s for me. On the 10th September, it will be 10 years since my Ph.D. viva. In November, it will be 10 years since I got my first lecturing position (TT Assistant Prof) at the University of Lincoln. It’s 10 years since I met Dr Caroline Edwards and we began publishing Alluvium together. And it’s 10 years since we began planning the Open Library of Humanities.
The times they are, as Dylan said, a-changing. I have some professional news. I am delighted to say that I will be joining Crossref as Principal R&D Developer at the end of this year. This is a great move for me, allowing me to continue my development work around metadata and scholarly communications while having space to do a deep dive into the infrastructural technologies that underpin contemporary academic publishing.
As is customary, I also wanted to use this opportunity to give a few notes on why I (an apparently successful and productive academic) am making this move. I should note that I am retaining my Professorship at Birkbeck, University of London; an institution that I am proud to represent and serve. For 200 years this College of the University of London has provided education to people to whom it was traditionally denied. This has never been more vital and remains core to my ethos. I will continue to supervise Ph.D. students in my areas. But I also want, at this point, to do something different and to get my hands dirty in research and development. I’ve realised, over the past few months, how much I enjoy technical development projects and that I would like to spend more of my time working on them.
Abstract: Several initiatives have been taken to promote the open availability of bibliographic metadata of scholarly publications in Crossref. We present an up-to-date overview of the availability of six metadata elements in Crossref: reference lists, abstracts, ORCIDs, author affiliations, funding information, and license information. Our analysis shows that the availability of these metadata elements has improved over time, at least for journal articles, the most common publication type in Crossref. However, the analysis also shows that many publishers need to make additional efforts to realize full openness of bibliographic metadata.
“To what extent have ideas on open peer review developed by Godlee and others been realized over the past two decades? There is no straightforward answer to this question, since the availability of systematic data on peer review practices is limited. In this blog post, we use data from Crossref to offer some partial insights into the growing popularity of open peer review…..
As shown in Figure 2, Publons is by far the largest contributor of peer review records in Crossref, accounting for two-third of all records. A large majority of these records are linked to journal articles published by Wiley. Indeed, Wiley has made a considerable effort to promote open peer review (referred to as transparent peer review by Wiley). Other important contributors of peer review records in Crossref are PeerJ and eLife….
Copernicus and F1000 are special cases. Copernicus offers an integrated platform that publishes both journal articles and preprints as well as the associated review reports. Likewise, F1000 provides a platform that publishes multiple versions of an article, including the review reports for each version. Because of their special nature, we present statistics for Copernicus and F1000 separately from the statistics reported above. Peer review records for Copernicus and F1000 aren’t included in Figures 1, 2, and 3….”
Help us research, prototype, and build new services for our members and the community.
Location: Remote. But we are looking for somebody in +/- 2 UTC Time zones (e.g. Brazil, Ireland, UK, Scandinavia, Central Europe, West/Central Africa)
Salary: Between 80K-124K EUR (or equivalent) depending on experience and location. Benchmarked every two years.
Reports to: Director of Technology and Research.
Closing date: July 5, 2022
“Crossref’s vision—shared by others—is of a rich and reusable open network of relationships connecting research organizations, people, things, and actions; a scholarly record that the global community can build on forever for the benefit of society.
We call it the Research Nexus.
Join us to learn more about the Research Nexus concept and hear updates on all the projects we’re working on that aim to help achieve this vision. We’ll hear from you too on your priorities and we’ll learn the level of community adoption of some of the strategically-important elements of the Research Nexus such relationships in metadata, ROR for affiliations, data citation, retractions and corrections, and crowd-sourcing updates. …”
“Crossref, DataCite and ORCID work together to provide foundational open infrastructure that is integral to the global research ecosystem. We offer unique, persistent identifiers (PIDs) — Crossref and DataCite DOIs for research outputs and ORCID iDs for people — alongside collecting comprehensive, open metadata that is non-proprietary, accessible, interoperable, and available across borders, disciplines, and time.
As sustainable community-driven scholarly infrastructure providers ORCID, Crossref and Datacite, guarantee data provenance and machine-readability. Persistent identifiers combined with open, standardized, and machine readable metadata enable reliable and robust connections to be made between research outputs, organizations, individuals and much more, as well as being beneficial to others who build services and tools on top of the open infrastructure we provide making content more discoverable.
Join us for a webinar on the 27th June at 7am UTC/ 9am CEST / 5pm AEST where we will discuss:
– Who we are
– What we mean by Open Scholarly Infrastructure
– How our organizations work together for the benefit of the scholarly community
– How the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI) help to build trust and accountability as well as ensuring we are around for the long term….”
“In 2020 we released our first public data file, something we’ve turned into an annual affair supporting our commitment to the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI). We’ve just posted the 2022 file, which can now be downloaded via torrent like in years past.
We aim to publish these in the first quarter of each year, though as you may notice, we’re a little behind our intended schedule. The reason for this delay was that we wanted to make critical new metadata fields available, including resource URLs and titles with markup.
Crossref metadata is always openly available via our API. We recommend you use this method to incrementally add new and updated records once you’re up and running with an annual public data file. If you’re interested in more frequent and regular “full-file” downloads, consider subscribing to our Metadata Plus program. Plus subscribers have access to monthly snapshots in JSON and XML formats.
Every year our metadata corpus grows. The 2020 file was 65GB and held 112 million records; 2021 came in at 102GB and 120 million records. This year the file weighs in at 160 GB and contains metadata for 134 million records, or all Crossref records registered up to and including April 30, 2022….”
“COCI, the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations, is an RDF dataset containing details of all the citations that are specified by the open references to DOI-identified works present in Crossref, as of the latest COCI update. COCI does not index Crossref references that are not open, nor Crossref open references to entities that lack DOIs. The citations available in COCI are treated as first-class data entities, with accompanying properties including the citations timespan, modelled according to the OpenCitations Data Model. For an in-depth description of COCI, see:
Ivan Heibi, Silvio Peroni, David Shotton (2019). Software review: COCI, the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations. Scientometrics, 121 (2): 1213-1228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03217-6 …”
Just over a year ago, Crossref announced that our board had adopted the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI).
It was a well-timed announcement, as 2021 yet again showed just how dangerous it is for us to assume that the infrastructure systems we depend on for scholarly research will not disappear altogether or adopt a radically different focus. We adopted POSI to ensure that Crossref would not meet the same fate.
Abstract: To analyse the outcomes of the funding they provide, it is essential for funding agencies to be able to trace the publications resulting from their funding. We study the open availability of funding data in Crossref, focusing on funding data for publications that report research related to Covid-19. We also present a comparison with the funding data available in two proprietary bibliometric databases: Scopus and Web of Science. Our analysis reveals a limited coverage of funding data in Crossref. It also shows problems related to the quality of funding data, especially in Scopus. We offer recommendations for improving the open availability of funding data in Crossref.
“An ambitious free index of more than 200 million scientific documents that catalogues publication sources, author information and research topics, has been launched.
The index, called OpenAlex after the ancient Library of Alexandria in Egypt, also aims to chart connections between these data points to create a comprehensive, interlinked database of the global research system, say its founders. The database, which launched on 3 January, is a replacement for Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG), a free alternative to subscription-based platforms such as Scopus, Dimensions and Web of Science that was discontinued at the end of 2021.
“It’s just pulling lots of databases together in a clever way,” says Euan Adie, founder of Overton, a London-based firm that tracks the research cited in policy documents. Overton had been getting its data from various sources, including MAG, ORCID, Crossref and directly from publishers, but has now switched to using only OpenAlex, in the hope of making the process easier….”