Thank you to everyone who responded with feedback on the Op Cit proposal. This post clarifies, defends, and amends the original proposal in light of the responses that have been sent. We have endeavoured to respond to every point that was raised, either here or in the document comments themselves.
We strongly prefer for this to be developed in collaboration with CLOCKSS, LOCKSS, and/or Portico, i.e. through established preservation services that already have existing arrangements in place, are properly funded, and understand the problem space.
I’m pleased to share the 2023 board election slate. Crossref’s Nominating Committee received 87 submissions from members worldwide to fill seven open board seats.
We maintain a balance of eight large member seats and eight small member seats. A member’s size is determined based on the membership fee tier they pay. We look at how our total revenue is generated across the membership tiers and split it down the middle. Like last year, about half of our revenue came from members in the tiers $0 - $1,650, and the other half came from members in tiers $3,900 - $50,000.
Crossref acquires Retraction Watch data and opens it for the scientific community Agreement to combine and publicly distribute data about tens of thousands of retracted research papers, and grow the service together
12th September 2023 —– The Center for Scientific Integrity, the organisation behind the Retraction Watch blog and database, and Crossref, the global infrastructure underpinning research communications, both not-for-profits, announced today that the Retraction Watch database has been acquired by Crossref and made a public resource.
Today, we are announcing a long-term plan to deprecate the Open Funder Registry. For some time, we have understood that there is significant overlap between the Funder Registry and the Research Organization Registry (ROR), and funders and publishers have been asking us whether they should use Funder IDs or ROR IDs to identify funders. It has therefore become clear that merging the two registries will make workflows more efficient and less confusing for all concerned.
The Metadata Manager tool is in beta and contains many bugs. It’s being deprecated at the end of 2021. We recommend using the web deposit tool as an alternative, or the OJS plugin if your content is hosted on the OJS platform from PKP.
Once you click Deposit, we immediately process the deposit and display the results for accepted and rejected deposits. All deposit records accepted by the system have a live DOI.
All deposit results are archived and available for reference on the Deposit history tab on the top menu bar.
You can also see your deposit history in the admin tool - go to the Administration tab, then the Submissions tab. Metadata Manager deposit filenames begin with MDT. You can even review the XML that Metadata Manager has created your behalf.
Updating existing records and failed deposits
Metadata Manager also makes it easy to update existing records, even if you didn’t use Metadata Manager to make the deposit in the first place. You must add the journal to your workspace before you can update the records associated with it - learn more about setting up a new journal in your workspace.
Accepted and Failed submissions can be updated using the respective tabs in the workspace. Click into the journal, and then click into the article. Add or make changes to the information, and then deposit.
What does the status “warning” in my submission result mean?
When similar metadata is registered for more than one DOI, it’s possible that the additional DOIs are duplicates. Because DOIs are intended to be unique, the potentially duplicated DOI is called a conflict. Learn more about the conflict report.
In Metadata Manager, if you register bibliographic metadata that is very similar to that for an existing DOI, you will see a status “warning” with your submission result. This is accurate.
When you return to your journal workspace in Metadata Manager to review your list of DOIs, the DOI that returned the “warning” will display as “failed”. This is inaccurate, as you can see if you try to resolve the DOI in question. We are working on improving the wording in this part of the process to make it less confusing.
Page owner: Sara Bowman | Last updated 2022-July-22