Product Manager at CrossRef. I ’ m going to talk to you about two of our services - CrossCheck (which some of you will be very familiar with) and CrossMark, a new service that we launched in April 2012. I ’ ll take about 30 minutes to give you updates and information on each based on what has happened in the last year. There ’ s a lot to fit in, so bear with me and I ’ ll give you links to pertintent information as we go through.
Launched in 2008 so around 4 years old So, what is CrossCheck? Two components.
The progress of CrossCheck to date and to talk about the database. Very comprehensive database - can see list of titles on our website. Not just STM titles.
From our perspective that’s great, but we also wanted to do a survey to see how people are using CrossCheck 4 years after it has launched. We have anecdotal information of course, but we wanted to compare the results against what we did in 2009 when CrossCheck was just launched. If you didn’t receive the survey and are keen to fill it in, let me know and I’ll ensure it is sent to you. Main findings: Shift to checking on submission plus 4% not checking vs 25% A lot of these stats come from greater adoption but it’s interesting to see publishers commit to this. Useful part of Editorial Process Managing Ed/Ed Assistant doing it Across a wider spread of subject areas (mostly medicine but now more A&H, sociocultural etc) What people would like to see in iThenticate (follow-up on) What stuff people are aware of (webinars etc) Use of percentages vs volume of text checked Use being widely publicised – journal. Publisher level and in sub systems. Less so at article level – maybe through CM? Also running User Groups to get feedback.
So one thing the survey touched on was the iThenticate system which you use to screen manuscripts – some notable developments in 2012 which should help the service be of even more use. Laurie McArthur rather than Janett Perry – may have been in touch about your account, indexing and also runs webinars. CrossCheck branding will also appear in ScholarOne end Jan.
I’ll talk for a little longer about CrossMark, just because it’s a newer initiative and I’d like to leave some time for questions on that if we can. The fundamental principal of CrossMark is just this: when content changes, readers need to know and they need to be able to find out about it in an effective way.
Many things can happen to content after it has been published - not all bad (post pub peer-review). It can be corrected, enhanced, retracted or even withdrawn. This has always been the case, and it has been and is the publisher ’ s responsibility to correct and update the literature that they publish. There really isn ’ t such a thing as a ‘ final version ’ . Post-publication peer-review and this needs to be flagged up to the reader.
We probably don’t mention it enough, but PDFs are where CrossMark really comes into it’s own. A lot of people find a paper they want to use, download the PDF and then come back to it later on. What if the paper changes in that period? You don’t want to waste time and effort using something in your research that has been corrected or retracted. It’s no good a publisher putting a ‘retracted’ watermark across a PDF if it’s already downloaded, but with a PDF displaying a CrossMark like this one: http://journals.iucr.org/b/issues/2012/01/00/pf0091/pf0091.pdf if you are online and click on the link it will tell you the current status of the document and, importantly, if there have been any updates to it, something you might otherwise have missed. CrossMark will be a consistent way to find this across different publishers so readers know where to look for that information every time. Simple as that. And this is what you’ll see most times, that the document is current.
But what if a piece of content appears differently, what will I see then? When I click on the logo, I get the following page display. I can see there’s an update and I can link to it. I can also get to the publisher copy of the manuscript too.
As a side point, it’s also useful in HTML as well. Of course publishers inform readers when there ’ s an update and nowadays they do so electronically, but there ’ s no standard way of doing this at the moment, and it ’ s not always easy to spot updates. This article in Science has a correction, and as it ’ s flagged in red text you ’ ve probably spotted it over here on the left.
And what about this one? Nothing obvious at the top of the page, or in the tool bars on the right...
...but if you scroll down the page a bit here ’ s a correction located under the “ related articles ” heading. And that ’ s not to mention that where the reader initially finds the paper is often not the publisher site. It could be in an institutional repository, on PMC, Mendeley…
CrossMark addresses these problems.
So, I touched on Additional Publication Information. What does that mean? You’ll have noticed on one of the earlier CM boxes I showed there’s a Record tab. Publishers can provide extra info that might be useful to their readers who can then find it all in one place. As you’ve just seen, correction and retraction information gets everywhere so why not standardise this? I really like this example. Plus ‘info’ buttons. Funder Info too. Perhaps OA stuff as well.
These are just a few of the things that have come up when talking with publishers. CrossRef isn ’ t going to advise on what publishers should display in the record box, but we expect that communities of interest may develop guidelines or best practices within different areas.
Loads of technical info on our Support Site that’s being updated. There’s also an annotated sample site which includes example landing pages, XML and PDF files. I like that.
• Launched in 2008• Software that analyses and compares text• Database of content to check text against
200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 364 publishers 40• 20 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012• Over 33.6 million content items indexed • 79,500 titles• Over 50,000 documents being screened each month
Results: : • Shift to checking on submission: 25% in 2009 to 42% in 2012 • Percentage of manuscripts checked: 19% more than 80% in 2012 vs 4% in 2009 • 73% of users had detected plagiarised content using CrossCheck vs 45% in 2009 • Across a wide spread of subject areas • Use of CrossCheck being publicised • How can people get more information?
iThenticate Updates• New UK office and contact• New features in iThenticate system: • Section Exclusion • File size increase • Speed • CrossCheck Branding • Document Viewer
CrossMark Content changesWhen it does, readers need to know
What is CrossMark?• A logo that identifies a publisher-maintained copy of a piece of content• Clicking the logo tells you: • Whether there have been any updates (even on PDFs!) • If this copy is being maintained by the publisher • Where the publisher-maintained version is • Other important publication record information
What kind of Publication Recordinformation could be available? • Funding disclosures • Conflict of interest statements • Publication history (submission, revision and accepted dates) • Location of data deposits or registries • Peer review process used • CrossCheck plagiarism screening • License types • and more...