CrossMark Demo at the MLA May 2012

550 views
464 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
550
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • \n
  • \n
  • The idea that journals should be published and preserved in amber doesn’t work in a web world.\n
  • The way we are communicating corrections to readers is archaic. This is a real photo of a correction notice for a book from a bulletin board!\n
  • Retractions are on the rise. \n
  • It’s time for the idea of a “final version” of an article to rest in peace.\n
  • \n
  • on point 3: They do teach patrons the importance of such notifications and where to look for them. \n
  • on point 3: They do teach patrons the importance of such notifications and where to look for them. \n
  • on point 3: They do teach patrons the importance of such notifications and where to look for them. \n
  • on point 3: They do teach patrons the importance of such notifications and where to look for them. \n
  • on point 3: They do teach patrons the importance of such notifications and where to look for them. \n
  • on point 3: They do teach patrons the importance of such notifications and where to look for them. \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • While most publishers are responsible about notifying readers of changes, they all handle them in a different way. It may not be easy for researchers to find corrections and other changes. \nFor example, in this article from The Royal Society, the correction is noted to the right of the article. \nSalvatore Federico and T. Christian Gasser, “Nonlinear elasticity of biological tissues with statistical fibre orientation,” J. R. Soc. Interface, June 6, 2010 7 (47) 955-966; http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2009.0502\n\n\n\n
  • In this article, the correction is noted under the “referred to by” heading below the bibliographic metadata for the article. \nChek Kim Loi, Moyra Sweetnam Evans, “Cultural differences in the organization of research article introductions from the field of educational psychology: English and Chinese,” J. Pragmatics, 42 (10) (2010) 2814–2825, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.03.010 \n\n\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • Which leads to a second problem, which is that there is often more than one version of an article available. Here we have an article from the Journal of Surgical Research which was retracted because it was found to contain plagiarised material. On the publisher’s site it’s flagged pretty clearly as retracted up here in the article title...\n
  • If you search for this article in Google Scholar, however, the publisher’s site isn’t the first to appear - in fact it’s the fourth listing\n
  • The first result is an information sharing site for doctors where someone has posted the abstract, and here there’s no mention of the retraction....\n
  • The second is PubMed, and the retraction has made it on to the Pub Med copy, although it’s not as obvious as it is on the publisher’s site - it’s not part of the article title but a separate link below.\n
  • But what if you’d come across the abstract somewhere else? Maybe through CiteULike, where again there’s no mention of the retraction. \n
  • <wait for slide to load!> Or there could well be a copy in the author’s institutional repository... \nWith all of these options there’s a reasonable chance that the reader isn’t necessarily going to see the correction or retraction that the publisher has issued. \n
  • <wait for slide to load!> Or there could well be a copy in the author’s institutional repository... \nWith all of these options there’s a reasonable chance that the reader isn’t necessarily going to see the correction or retraction that the publisher has issued. \n
  • <wait for slide to load!> Or there could well be a copy in the author’s institutional repository... \nWith all of these options there’s a reasonable chance that the reader isn’t necessarily going to see the correction or retraction that the publisher has issued. \n
  • <wait for slide to load!> Or there could well be a copy in the author’s institutional repository... \nWith all of these options there’s a reasonable chance that the reader isn’t necessarily going to see the correction or retraction that the publisher has issued. \n
  • <wait for slide to load!> Or there could well be a copy in the author’s institutional repository... \nWith all of these options there’s a reasonable chance that the reader isn’t necessarily going to see the correction or retraction that the publisher has issued. \n
  • As we have seen the web can host multiple versions an article or other scholarly content. For example, scholarly documents can be found on a journal or aggregator site or on author home page, institutional repository, or subject repository. Some of these documents are the published versions, sometimes called the “version of record” and some of them may be preprints or other versions. \nThese multiple versions can exist no matter what the access rules are for the documents. They can be open access or by subscription. In either case, CrossMark can help identify updates or other changes. \n\n
  • \n
  • For example, this paper displayed in Mendeley. \nUse Rachael’s examples of a medical paper that has been retracted for this audience. \n<Show examples of multiple copies of the same article from different sources. Then show an example of the article at the publishers’ site. You can use these examples, or substitute your own.>\nMendeley\n\n
  • Is also available in the Directory of Open Access Journals. ...\n
  • ..and on the publisher’s web site. Even when the publisher allows this kind of distribution, it makes it even more difficult to track down important changes.\n\nCrossMark is a service being introduced by CrossRef (that’s the organization that provides Digital Object Identifiers—DOIs—and allows publishers to link their references together). CrossMark will allow you to quickly identify a published version of a scholarly document and to see if that document has had any updates. \n\n\n \n
  • It is being funded by publishers, which means there is no cost to researchers or libraries. \n\nEven after an article or other scholarly content has been published, occasionally further changes may be made. These changes could include\n\n
  • It is being funded by publishers, which means there is no cost to researchers or libraries. \n\nEven after an article or other scholarly content has been published, occasionally further changes may be made. These changes could include\n\n
  • ∞editions (for example for books)\n∞versions (for example, reference entries, data sets) \n\n
  • ∞editions (for example for books)\n∞versions (for example, reference entries, data sets) \n\n
  • ∞editions (for example for books)\n∞versions (for example, reference entries, data sets) \n\n
  • ∞editions (for example for books)\n∞versions (for example, reference entries, data sets) \n\n
  • ∞editions (for example for books)\n∞versions (for example, reference entries, data sets) \n\n
  • ∞editions (for example for books)\n∞versions (for example, reference entries, data sets) \n\n
  • ∞editions (for example for books)\n∞versions (for example, reference entries, data sets) \n\n
  • ∞editions (for example for books)\n∞versions (for example, reference entries, data sets) \n\n
  • ∞editions (for example for books)\n∞versions (for example, reference entries, data sets) \n\n
  • ∞editions (for example for books)\n∞versions (for example, reference entries, data sets) \n\n
  • ∞editions (for example for books)\n∞versions (for example, reference entries, data sets) \n\n
  • Scholarly publishers have a duty to keep the scholarly record sound and free from fraudulent or incorrect research by updating the status of the documents that they publish when those documents undergo changes that could change the interpretation or crediting of the work. In practice, publishers can only update the copies of the work that they control and are responsible for. \nCrossMark is a service that is designed to\n \n * Allow the reader to easily determine the current status of a\n scholarly document and whether any changes have been made.\n \n* Display important, non-bibliographic publication record information highlighted by the publisher that helps readers evaluate the content. We’ll see some examples in a moment.\n\nWhen you see the CrossMark logo, you know that you are looking at a published document, and that the publisher has made a commitment to keep the content up to date. When you click on a CrossMark logo, you can see if it is current or if there have been updates. \n\n\n
  • Scholarly publishers have a duty to keep the scholarly record sound and free from fraudulent or incorrect research by updating the status of the documents that they publish when those documents undergo changes that could change the interpretation or crediting of the work. In practice, publishers can only update the copies of the work that they control and are responsible for. \nCrossMark is a service that is designed to\n \n * Allow the reader to easily determine the current status of a\n scholarly document and whether any changes have been made.\n \n* Display important, non-bibliographic publication record information highlighted by the publisher that helps readers evaluate the content. We’ll see some examples in a moment.\n\nWhen you see the CrossMark logo, you know that you are looking at a published document, and that the publisher has made a commitment to keep the content up to date. When you click on a CrossMark logo, you can see if it is current or if there have been updates. \n\n\n
  • Scholarly publishers have a duty to keep the scholarly record sound and free from fraudulent or incorrect research by updating the status of the documents that they publish when those documents undergo changes that could change the interpretation or crediting of the work. In practice, publishers can only update the copies of the work that they control and are responsible for. \nCrossMark is a service that is designed to\n \n * Allow the reader to easily determine the current status of a\n scholarly document and whether any changes have been made.\n \n* Display important, non-bibliographic publication record information highlighted by the publisher that helps readers evaluate the content. We’ll see some examples in a moment.\n\nWhen you see the CrossMark logo, you know that you are looking at a published document, and that the publisher has made a commitment to keep the content up to date. When you click on a CrossMark logo, you can see if it is current or if there have been updates. \n\n\n
  • Scholarly publishers have a duty to keep the scholarly record sound and free from fraudulent or incorrect research by updating the status of the documents that they publish when those documents undergo changes that could change the interpretation or crediting of the work. In practice, publishers can only update the copies of the work that they control and are responsible for. \nCrossMark is a service that is designed to\n \n * Allow the reader to easily determine the current status of a\n scholarly document and whether any changes have been made.\n \n* Display important, non-bibliographic publication record information highlighted by the publisher that helps readers evaluate the content. We’ll see some examples in a moment.\n\nWhen you see the CrossMark logo, you know that you are looking at a published document, and that the publisher has made a commitment to keep the content up to date. When you click on a CrossMark logo, you can see if it is current or if there have been updates. \n\n\n
  • Scholarly publishers have a duty to keep the scholarly record sound and free from fraudulent or incorrect research by updating the status of the documents that they publish when those documents undergo changes that could change the interpretation or crediting of the work. In practice, publishers can only update the copies of the work that they control and are responsible for. \nCrossMark is a service that is designed to\n \n * Allow the reader to easily determine the current status of a\n scholarly document and whether any changes have been made.\n \n* Display important, non-bibliographic publication record information highlighted by the publisher that helps readers evaluate the content. We’ll see some examples in a moment.\n\nWhen you see the CrossMark logo, you know that you are looking at a published document, and that the publisher has made a commitment to keep the content up to date. When you click on a CrossMark logo, you can see if it is current or if there have been updates. \n\n\n
  • Scholarly publishers have a duty to keep the scholarly record sound and free from fraudulent or incorrect research by updating the status of the documents that they publish when those documents undergo changes that could change the interpretation or crediting of the work. In practice, publishers can only update the copies of the work that they control and are responsible for. \nCrossMark is a service that is designed to\n \n * Allow the reader to easily determine the current status of a\n scholarly document and whether any changes have been made.\n \n* Display important, non-bibliographic publication record information highlighted by the publisher that helps readers evaluate the content. We’ll see some examples in a moment.\n\nWhen you see the CrossMark logo, you know that you are looking at a published document, and that the publisher has made a commitment to keep the content up to date. When you click on a CrossMark logo, you can see if it is current or if there have been updates. \n\n\n
  • Let’s look at an example. As I’m sure you know, researchers frequently download PDF versions of articles. Quite a long period may elapse before they look at them again. It is possible that a correction or other change could be issued after the researcher downloaded the document. \n\nHere is a fictitious example.\n\nAll I have to do is click on the CrossMark logo and I get a popup box telling me whether this article is up to date. \n\n
  • You can easily see that this document has an update—-in fact, it has been retracted. I can click the CrossRef DOI to go to the retraction notice. \n\n[click the retraction DOI]\nhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5555/24242424x \n\n
  • http://psychoceramics.labs.crossref.org/10.5555-24242424x.html \n\nOf course, a retraction is a rare event, as it should be. In fact, most scholarly articles never have any kind of corrections.\n\n
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S0108767310044892\n\nYou can see that CrossMark logos can appear on both PDFs and HTML documents and as long as the user is connected to the internet, they work the same. \n\n<Click on the slide to bring up a live internet connection, then hover over the CrossMark logo>\n\nOn an HTML page, when you hover over the CrossMark logo, you get a message that tells you to click to get status information and verify authenticity. \n\n<Click on the CrossMark logo>\n\n\n\n
  • In this case, you can see that the document is current, and no updates are available. This will be the result most of the time, but it’s worth clicking on that logo every time you look at a document to make sure nothing has changed. \n\nDo you see the “Record” tab of this popup box? \n\n<Click on the record tab>\n\n
  • The Record tab gives additional publication record information about the content\nthat help readers evaluate the work. In this example, you can see\noptional data about the content type, the copyright statement, the peer review process, and publication history. \n\n<scroll down>\n\n
  • Some organizations are experimenting with using the Record tab for threaded publication information to highlight related research. \n
  • Some organizations are experimenting with using the Record tab for threaded publication information to highlight related research. \n
  • Some organizations are experimenting with using the Record tab for threaded publication information to highlight related research. \n
  • Some organizations are experimenting with using the Record tab for threaded publication information to highlight related research. \n
  • Some organizations are experimenting with using the Record tab for threaded publication information to highlight related research. \n
  • Some organizations are experimenting with using the Record tab for threaded publication information to highlight related research. \n
  • Some organizations are experimenting with using the Record tab for threaded publication information to highlight related research. \n
  • Some organizations are experimenting with using the Record tab for threaded publication information to highlight related research. \n
  • That’s really all there is to using the CrossMark service.\n\n\n
  • That’s really all there is to using the CrossMark service.\n\n\n
  • And the schedule for CrossMark - we’ve got a number of publishers working with us on the pilot at the moment, and we extended that with a soft launch in April. \n
  • And the schedule for CrossMark - we’ve got a number of publishers working with us on the pilot at the moment, and we extended that with a soft launch in April. \n
  • And the schedule for CrossMark - we’ve got a number of publishers working with us on the pilot at the moment, and we extended that with a soft launch in April. \n
  • \n
  • ...the first of the pilot participants to have CrossMark live was VGTU and you can see CrossMarks on their journal Business Theory and Practice. \n
  • The Royal Society has implemented CrossMark on their journal Proceedings B, going back to the start of 2011. \n
  • ...and an example I showed earlier - the international union of crystallography who have so far deposited quite a large amount of CrossMark data. This example is showing the CrossMark on a full text article. \nLive PDFs on a sample issue now live on the pilot site too. \n
  • CrossMark is running on ten journals on Elsevier’s Science Direct. \n
  • ...and on two titles from Oxford Journals\n
  • CrossMark data will be freely available and machine readable and query-able, so could potentially be used in search results to flag content that has status verification and possible additional information, although this is something that we haven’t discussed at any length with the search engines just yet. We have had some conversations with librarians about using CrossMark data to populate link resolvers by pulling back relevant information, and also with other third parties such as bibliographic management systems who might be able to pull status updates into users reference lists and personal libraries. While this screen is a mock-up a major search engine has committed to incorporating CrossMark. \n
  • We’ve also got marketing materials for the service, with a dedicated CrossMark microsite for publishers, librarians and researchers which launched last week. We will be making a variety of banner ads available to members to help explain CrossMark to your readers and there are also sections for librarians and researchers to explain what CrossMark is and why it’s such a valuable tool. \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • So remember, to cite with certainty, click the CrossMark logo once, click it twice, click it every time. \n
  • CrossMark Demo at the MLA May 2012

    1. 1. IN SEATTLE 21 May 2012Medical Libraries Association Carol Anne Meyer @meyercarol Carol Anne Meyer Business Development & Marketing @meyercarol
    2. 2. “The Web is by nature an interactive environment,yet online journals are mostly static, befitting theirtraditional role as a never-changing scholarly record.”
    3. 3. How Does a Researcher Know• Author name• Affiliation• How many times something has been cited• On a reputable web site (publisher or journal brand)• Ratings, Comments
    4. 4. Library Concerns
    5. 5. Library Concerns• Users not always clear which version of a document they are reading.
    6. 6. Library Concerns• Users not always clear which version of a document they are reading.• Google and Google Scholar search results return multiple versions.
    7. 7. Library Concerns• Users not always clear which version of a document they are reading.• Google and Google Scholar search results return multiple versions.• Librarians do not have time to track post- publication changes at the article level.
    8. 8. Library Concerns• Users not always clear which version of a document they are reading.• Google and Google Scholar search results return multiple versions.• Librarians do not have time to track post- publication changes at the article level.• Readers might cite “incorrect” versions instead of the maintained Version of Record
    9. 9. Library Concerns• Users not always clear which version of a document they are reading.• Google and Google Scholar search results return multiple versions.• Librarians do not have time to track post- publication changes at the article level.• Readers might cite “incorrect” versions instead of the maintained Version of Record• Researchers complain that Google does not return up-to-date versions of their own articles.
    10. 10. Library Concerns• Users not always clear which version of a document they are reading.• Google and Google Scholar search results return multiple versions.• Librarians do not have time to track post- publication changes at the article level.• Readers might cite “incorrect” versions instead of the maintained Version of Record• Researchers complain that Google does not return up-to-date versions of their own articles.• Usage statistics don’t reflect true resource
    11. 11. Specific Correction Problems Mentioned• Interlibrary loan• Downloaded PDFs• Printed articles. Lack of awareness of corrections or updates particularly problematic in medicine and related fields.
    12. 12. A Little Quiz:Does this article have corrections?
    13. 13. A Little Quiz:Does this article have corrections?
    14. 14. • for Researchers and Librarians• CrossRef Members underwrite the cost
    15. 15. enhancements corrigenda errata updates protocol updates amendments withdrawalsnotices of concern retractions editions versions
    16. 16. How does help?
    17. 17. How does help?• Reader easily sees current status & whether changes have been made.
    18. 18. How does help?• Reader easily sees current status & whether changes have been made.• Clicking the logo tells you
    19. 19. How does help?• Reader easily sees current status & whether changes have been made.• Clicking the logo tells you • Whether there have been any corrections
    20. 20. How does help?• Reader easily sees current status & whether changes have been made.• Clicking the logo tells you • Whether there have been any corrections • If this instance is being maintained by the publisher
    21. 21. How does help?• Reader easily sees current status & whether changes have been made.• Clicking the logo tells you • Whether there have been any corrections • If this instance is being maintained by the publisher • Where the publisher-maintained version
    22. 22. What kind of Publication Recordinformation could be available?
    23. 23. What kind of Publication Recordinformation could be available?• Funding disclosures--FundRef
    24. 24. What kind of Publication Recordinformation could be available?• Funding disclosures--FundRef• Conflict of interest statements
    25. 25. What kind of Publication Recordinformation could be available?• Funding disclosures--FundRef• Conflict of interest statements• Publication history (submission, revision and accepted dates)
    26. 26. What kind of Publication Recordinformation could be available?• Funding disclosures--FundRef• Conflict of interest statements• Publication history (submission, revision and accepted dates)• Location of data deposits or registries
    27. 27. What kind of Publication Recordinformation could be available?• Funding disclosures--FundRef• Conflict of interest statements• Publication history (submission, revision and accepted dates)• Location of data deposits or registries• Peer review process used
    28. 28. What kind of Publication Recordinformation could be available?• Funding disclosures--FundRef• Conflict of interest statements• Publication history (submission, revision and accepted dates)• Location of data deposits or registries• Peer review process used• CrossCheck plagiarism screening process
    29. 29. What kind of Publication Recordinformation could be available?• Funding disclosures--FundRef• Conflict of interest statements• Publication history (submission, revision and accepted dates)• Location of data deposits or registries• Peer review process used• CrossCheck plagiarism screening process• License types
    30. 30. What kind of Publication Recordinformation could be available?• Funding disclosures--FundRef• Conflict of interest statements• Publication history (submission, revision and accepted dates)• Location of data deposits or registries• Peer review process used• CrossCheck plagiarism screening process• License types• and more...
    31. 31. • Anything with a CrossRef DOI can have a CrossMark logo
    32. 32. • Anything with a CrossRef DOI can have a CrossMark logo• CrossMark logos will not be applied to prepublication content
    33. 33. Now!
    34. 34. Now! Pilot running since summer2011
    35. 35. Now! Pilot running since summer2011 Opening to all CrossRefMembers April 2012.
    36. 36. 9 Publishers• Elsevier• International Union ofCrystallography •American Institute of Physics• Oxford University Press (AIP)(OUP) •World Bank• The Royal Society •The Rockefeller University• Vilnius Gediminas Technical PressUniversity• Wiley-Blackwell •Scholar Science Journals
    37. 37. Marketing Microsite now availablehttp://www.crossref.org/crossmark/
    38. 38. Preliminary stats 36,000 CrossMark records 21 journals 390+ corrections 6000 “hits” on 1500 unique records
    39. 39. Gallery of Examples:http://www.crossref.org/crossmark/AboutGallery.htm
    40. 40. Any Questions?http:www.crossref.org/crossmark cmeyer@crossref.org

    ×