• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Private Content
Introduction to CrossMark Webinar
 

Introduction to CrossMark Webinar

on

  • 1,492 views

This presentation has been updated. See http://www.slideshare.net/CrossRef/introduction-to-crossmark for the latest webinar.

This presentation has been updated. See http://www.slideshare.net/CrossRef/introduction-to-crossmark for the latest webinar.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,492
Views on SlideShare
1,476
Embed Views
16

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
8
Comments
0

4 Embeds 16

http://nioolib.blogspot.nl 8
https://intranet.nioo.knaw.nl 6
http://www.crossref.org 1
https://nioolib.blogspot.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Apple Keynote

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Hello, welcome, thank you for coming today, etc. \nI am...\nToday’s webinar is to introduce and explain the CrossMark service that has just been launched by CrossRef. CrossMark has been in the planning for some time now, and has been running in pilot phase for the past year or so. Now we’ve launched, this session will give you information on what CrossMark is and how you can prepare for implementation of the service on your publications. \n
  • So in order to explain how CrossMark has come about, I’m going to start with a couple of fairly simple and statements.\n
  • So in order to explain how CrossMark has come about, I’m going to start with a couple of fairly simple and statements.\n
  • It’s easy to think that once something is published that’s it - the version of record is out there and that’s how it’ll stay. But we know it’s not as simple as that....\n
  • Many things can happen to content after it has been published. It can be corrected, enhanced, retracted or even withdrawn, and of course it’s the publisher’s responsibility to apply these corrections and updates to the literature that they publish. \n
  • There is also the big issue of trust for scholarly literature. Changes in content, if handled correctly, can enhance trust but if they aren’t handled well, they can undermine trust. There has been quite a bit in the news lately about how scientific fraud may be on the rise, with suspected increases in plagiarism and other types of misconduct. An some studies have confirmed this. A news item in Nature last year confirmed the numbers and highlighted a 10-fold increase in retraction notices which far outpaced the growth in the number of articles. \n\n
  • But it’s not just retractions that are a concern. Corrections are more common, and in the online world there are growing opportunities to enhance content, perhaps by adding source data or supplementary material after publication of the original article. It’s fair to say that the majority of content won’t change, but some of it will..\n
  • So two main points that CrossMark is addressing - First: it’s time for the idea of the “final version” of an article to rest in peace. There is no final version for content. Readers, and often publishers themselves, have a mindset that once the “version of record” is published that’s the end of the story and the end of the publisher’s role. In all the recent debates about whether and how scholarly publishers add value I didn’t see any mention of the role publishers have in providing ongoing maintenance and stewardship of content. \n\n
  • and when this content changes readers need to know that it has changed. It could be that an update adds extra data or background information to an article, but it could potentially be more serious, with corrections to information that could alter follow-on research or even treatment. So it’s important that this information gets out there. \n
  • And it’s also important that this information is disseminated effectively so that as many readers as possible are aware of the changes. With e-publications we’ve moved beyond notices on bulletin boards, but there are still some problems that need addressing. \n
  • One of these is consistency. This article in Science has a correction. It’s flagged over here on the left of the abstract in red text so it’s pretty easy to spot. \n
  • But this one is a bit more subtle. There’s nothing in the left of right hand columns, but instead this publisher has chosen to site the correction up at the top of the article here. \n
  • And what about this one? Nothing obvious at the top of the page, or in the tool bars on the right...\n
  • ...but if you scroll down the page a bit here’s a correction located under the “related articles” heading. \n
  • And then you have content that’s being held offline - here’s the PDF of the article we were just looking at. If you’ve downloaded this to your laptop or device you’ve got absolutely no means to know that there’s a correction that has been issued for this article. You could go back to look at it weeks or months later and you’d be completely oblivious to any updates or changes in its status. \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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • A huge problem is PDFs - what if I download a PDF to my computer when the article is published and then open it up a few months later after a correction has been made - how do I know if there’s been a correction? \n\n
  • These are all problems that we’re looking to address by launching CrossMark\n
  • So CrossMark. At its simplest it’s a logo that publishers will apply to content that they publish. When a reader clicks on the logo they will quickly and easily be able to tell:\nThe best way to explain it is to show some examples. \n
  • So CrossMark. At its simplest it’s a logo that publishers will apply to content that they publish. When a reader clicks on the logo they will quickly and easily be able to tell:\nThe best way to explain it is to show some examples. \n
  • So CrossMark. At its simplest it’s a logo that publishers will apply to content that they publish. When a reader clicks on the logo they will quickly and easily be able to tell:\nThe best way to explain it is to show some examples. \n
  • So CrossMark. At its simplest it’s a logo that publishers will apply to content that they publish. When a reader clicks on the logo they will quickly and easily be able to tell:\nThe best way to explain it is to show some examples. \n
  • So CrossMark. At its simplest it’s a logo that publishers will apply to content that they publish. When a reader clicks on the logo they will quickly and easily be able to tell:\nThe best way to explain it is to show some examples. \n
  • I’ll start with the most useful common scenario. We’re looking at a PDF from the Journal of Applied Crystallography. This came from my hard drive. Or I downloaded it from the author’s web site. Or was it my university’s institutional repository? Maybe somebody emailed me a copy? No, wait, I think this was from my Mendeley account. And when was that?\n\nAt any rate, you see there is a CrossMark logo in the upper left corner. Providing I am online, when I click on the logo it will pop up a webpage...\n\n
  • with a pop-up dialogue box giving the latest status. \nThis is what most people will see - confirmation that the document is up to date, the CrossRef DOI link that will always point to the publisher-maintained copy, and a link to the publisher’s policies. \nThere are no updates. This time.... (click) And the box also tells the reader that Future updates - if any - will be listed below, so getting them used to the idea that if changes happen, this is where they can find them.\n\nBut what if there had been a correction?\n\n
  • Here’s another PDF. (For the record, this example is a mock-up from the fictitious Journal of Psychoceramics.) The CrossMark logo in a different place (click), though it works the same way. \nI just click on the logo. ..\n\n
  • Here, clicking on the logo brings up the same CrossMark dialog box... but I discover that there was a clarification issued for this document. It gives a link to the correction.\n\nAll I need to do is click on the CrossRef DOI link (click) to go to the update. \n\n
  • \n
  • Of course, these work the same way on publisher’s HTML pages. (Click) You see a real article from The Proceedings of The Royal Society B on Royal Society’s website. The CrossMark logo appears just above the article title here. \n\n
  • Rolling your mouse over the logo brings up a text box that says Click to get updates and verify authenticity. And then when you click on the logo\n
  • You see the CrossMark dialog box. And this is what most people will see - confirmation that the document is up to date, the CrossRef DOI link that will always point to the publisher-maintained copy, and a link to the publisher’s policies. The box also tells the reader that Future updates - if any - will be listed below, so getting them used to the idea that if changes happen, this is where they can find them. \n
  • The second example is of a corrected article from another of our pilot publishers, the International Union of Crystallographers. Here, clicking on the logo brings up the same CrossMark dialog box...\n
  • ..but with information that alerts the reader to changes. Updates are available for this document. It says that there is a correction and gives a link to the correction.\n
  • You may have noticed in that previous example that there is an additional tab appearing in the dialogue box at the top here - the record tab.\n
  • This is where you can show additional metadata about the piece of content if you choose to do so. The publisher decides what to put here and can use these fields to define publication practices. You don’t have to populate this tab at all if you prefer not to, and if you don’t supply an additional metadata the tab simply won’t show. The fields are defined and labelled by the publisher, and there can be as many or as few as you choose. This particular data from another of our pilot participants, the International Union of Crystallography, and you can see that they are sharing some really useful information on the copyright, review process and publication history. \n
  • These are a few of the other possible pieces of information 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. There’s already a group of publishers discussing how best to display funding and grant information, for example. \n
  • These are a few of the other possible pieces of information 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. There’s already a group of publishers discussing how best to display funding and grant information, for example. \n
  • These are a few of the other possible pieces of information 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. There’s already a group of publishers discussing how best to display funding and grant information, for example. \n
  • These are a few of the other possible pieces of information 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. There’s already a group of publishers discussing how best to display funding and grant information, for example. \n
  • These are a few of the other possible pieces of information 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. There’s already a group of publishers discussing how best to display funding and grant information, for example. \n
  • These are a few of the other possible pieces of information 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. There’s already a group of publishers discussing how best to display funding and grant information, for example. \n
  • These are a few of the other possible pieces of information 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. There’s already a group of publishers discussing how best to display funding and grant information, for example. \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. \n
  • So now let’s take a look at what you actually have to do to implement CrossMark.\n
  • The first thing is that you have to be a CrossRef member in good standing. But CrossMark is an optional service, so there is no requirement for CrossRef members to participate. \nCrossMarks can be assigned to any piece of content that has a CrossRef DOI. This can include ahead-of-print or early release copies that the publisher has made available and is committing to maintaining. CrossMarks should not be applied to author’s copies or any other pre-print that is outside of the publisher’s control and will not be maintained.\nSp by joining CrossMark you are agreeing to maintain your published content, and to keep it’s associated CrossMark metadata up to date. We also have some guidelines on displaying the CrossMark logo. \n
  • The first thing is that you have to be a CrossRef member in good standing. But CrossMark is an optional service, so there is no requirement for CrossRef members to participate. \nCrossMarks can be assigned to any piece of content that has a CrossRef DOI. This can include ahead-of-print or early release copies that the publisher has made available and is committing to maintaining. CrossMarks should not be applied to author’s copies or any other pre-print that is outside of the publisher’s control and will not be maintained.\nSp by joining CrossMark you are agreeing to maintain your published content, and to keep it’s associated CrossMark metadata up to date. We also have some guidelines on displaying the CrossMark logo. \n
  • The first thing is that you have to be a CrossRef member in good standing. But CrossMark is an optional service, so there is no requirement for CrossRef members to participate. \nCrossMarks can be assigned to any piece of content that has a CrossRef DOI. This can include ahead-of-print or early release copies that the publisher has made available and is committing to maintaining. CrossMarks should not be applied to author’s copies or any other pre-print that is outside of the publisher’s control and will not be maintained.\nSp by joining CrossMark you are agreeing to maintain your published content, and to keep it’s associated CrossMark metadata up to date. We also have some guidelines on displaying the CrossMark logo. \n
  • \n
  • Firstly you need to create a CrossMark policy page on your website. At it’s simplest this page explains that you are a CrossMark member committed to maintaining the content that you publish. It should link to or explain your policies on corrections and retractions, and define any of the custom metadata fields that you are using in the Record Tab. \nYou need to assign this page its own DOI so that it can be linked to, and you need to deposit the page with CrossRef. \n
  • We’ve created a CrossMark Pilot mini-site that contains all of the practical and technical information that you’ll need, and within that site there’s a page on creating your policy page, including instructions on how to deposit policy pages. NB. although it says it’s for the pilot actually it’s for use by all those implementing CrossMark. Everything on there is up to date and being updated as changes occur. \n
  • And here’s another from Wiley - again, it has links to the publisher’s guidelines for authors\n
  • Then you need to create and deposit CrossMark metadata. This can be done on its own for backfile content or together with your regular DOI metadata for current content. \nThis is the minimum data\nDOI of content, DOI of Policy Page\nIf the metadata you are depositing is for a correction or update you need to include the DOI of the article that the correction relates to.\n
  • I’m not going to get into details of showing XML deposit files and schema in this presentation, but you will find it all, including sample deposit files, on the pilot support site. \n
  • This perhaps goes without saying, but the CrossMark metadata needs to be kept up to date! IF an article is updated you must deposit CrossMark metadata for the update and tie it to the article or piece of content that is being corrected, using the DOI of the piece of content that is being corrected. \n
  • You need to record the CrossRef DOi in your HTML metadata, and that is accomplished by simply adding this line of code. The CrossRef logo widget uses this to retrieve the correct metadata for that article. \n
  • A certain amount of the CrossMark metadata must also be embedded in the PDF, at the very minimum the DOI of the piece of content, and the URL on which the publisher-maintained copy of the content resides. This metadata is for the benefit of search engines crawling PDFs so they can pick up the DOI and distinguish copies of the PDF on the publishers site from other copies that they may come across. \n
  • We’ve created a tool that will do this for you called PDF Mark - again I’m not going to go into detail about this in today’s presentation, but you can access the information from the CrossMark Support Site\n
  • You need to display the CrossMark logo on the article landing page, ideally situated as close as possible to the article title, and outside of access control. On the CrossMark pilot site you will find information on the widget that can be inserted into HTML pages to add the logo and link it to the CrossMark dialogue box.\nThe CrossMark logo should also be added to PDFs. Black and white versions of the logo are available if required. We have another tool on the Support site that will help you to add the logo and link to PDFs. We’re not asking pilot publishers to add logos to PDFs just yet because there’s an element of permanence once something is in a PDF and downloaded so we want to complete final testing, but CrossMarks in PDFs will be a very important part of the service once it’s launched. \nThere is no requirement to add CrossMarks to backfile if the publisher doesn’t want to do so.\n
  • You need to display the CrossMark logo on the article landing page, ideally situated as close as possible to the article title, and outside of access control. On the CrossMark pilot site you will find information on the widget that can be inserted into HTML pages to add the logo and link it to the CrossMark dialogue box.\nThe CrossMark logo should also be added to PDFs. Black and white versions of the logo are available if required. We have another tool on the Support site that will help you to add the logo and link to PDFs. We’re not asking pilot publishers to add logos to PDFs just yet because there’s an element of permanence once something is in a PDF and downloaded so we want to complete final testing, but CrossMarks in PDFs will be a very important part of the service once it’s launched. \nThere is no requirement to add CrossMarks to backfile if the publisher doesn’t want to do so.\n
  • You need to display the CrossMark logo on the article landing page, ideally situated as close as possible to the article title, and outside of access control. On the CrossMark pilot site you will find information on the widget that can be inserted into HTML pages to add the logo and link it to the CrossMark dialogue box.\nThe CrossMark logo should also be added to PDFs. Black and white versions of the logo are available if required. We have another tool on the Support site that will help you to add the logo and link to PDFs. We’re not asking pilot publishers to add logos to PDFs just yet because there’s an element of permanence once something is in a PDF and downloaded so we want to complete final testing, but CrossMarks in PDFs will be a very important part of the service once it’s launched. \nThere is no requirement to add CrossMarks to backfile if the publisher doesn’t want to do so.\n
  • This is the part that’s possibly going to be a bit more of a challenge - you will need to decide what - if any - additional record metadata you want to display in the record tab, remembering that it is optional. \nAnd then you have to work out where that data is held and how you are going to bring it in to the publication workflow for deposit with you CrossMark metadata. You don’t have to decide on and deposit additional metadata in the first instance- if you want to start with the basic CrossMark info and add Record metadata further down the line this is entirely acceptable, and will be treated as an update to your CrossMark metadata with no fees attached. \n
  • Speaking of fees - there are some! CrossMark deposits will cost 20 cents per item for current content and 2c for backfile. There is no requirement to add CrossMarks to your backfile if you prefer not to. \nNo sign-up fee. \n
  • Speaking of fees - there are some! CrossMark deposits will cost 20 cents per item for current content and 2c for backfile. There is no requirement to add CrossMarks to your backfile if you prefer not to. \nNo sign-up fee. \n
  • And so on to the schedule. We’ve been running the pilot since the middle of last year, and now have 21 journals live....\nLaunched officially on 27th April - soft launch\n
  • And so on to the schedule. We’ve been running the pilot since the middle of last year, and now have 21 journals live....\nLaunched officially on 27th April - soft launch\n
  • And so on to the schedule. We’ve been running the pilot since the middle of last year, and now have 21 journals live....\nLaunched officially on 27th April - soft launch\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
  • Something that we’ve just added to the pilot support site is a set of CrossMark use cases based on the made up journal of psychoceramics. There are links to this site from the technical guidelines page and the examples page, and there is also a technical annotation for each use case\n
  • ...these annotations walk you through the set up for each example, from simple corrections to some of the more complex possibilities such as in-situ corrections or correction notices that update more than one item of content. \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

Introduction to CrossMark Webinar Introduction to CrossMark Webinar Presentation Transcript

  • There is no final version October 2012
  • CrossMark
  • CrossMark Content changes
  • CrossMark Content changesWhen it does, readers need to know
  • Content changes
  • erratum corrigendum updates enhancements withdrawals retractions new editions protocol updatesnotices of concern, etc.
  • Nature 478, 26-28 (2011) Science publishing: The trouble with retractions http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/478026a
  • errata corrigenda updates enhancements withdrawals retractions new editions protocol updatesnotices of concern, etc.
  • When content changes,readers need to know
  • Does this article have corrections?
  • Does this article have corrections?
  • What is CrossMark?
  • What is CrossMark? A logo that identifies a publisher- maintained copy of a piece of content
  • What is CrossMark? A logo that identifies a publisher- maintained copy of a piece of content Clicking the logo tells you
  • 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
  • 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 If this copy is being maintained by the publisher
  • 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 If this copy is being maintained by the publisher Where the publisher-maintained version is
  • What kind of PublicationRecord information could be available?
  • What kind of PublicationRecord information 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
  • CrossMark What do publishers have to do?
  • Participation is optional
  • Participation is optionalAnything with a CrossRef DOI canhave a CrossMark Online-early content, but not pre- prints
  • Participation is optionalAnything with a CrossRef DOI canhave a CrossMark Online-early content, but not pre- printsParticipants must maintain their content keep CrossMark metadata up to date!
  • CrossMarkSteps for implementation
  • 1. Create a CrossMark Policy Page Explain CrossMark, commitment to maintain the content Explain publisher policies on corrections, retractions, etc. Define any custom metadata fields for the Record Tab Assign it a DOI for persistent linking
  • http://crossmarksupport.labs.crossref.org/policy_page.html
  • 2. Deposit CrossMark Metadata DOI of the content the CrossMark is being applied to DOI for the publisher’s CrossMark Policy Page DOI of any piece of content that is being updated
  • http://crossmarksupport.labs.crossref.org
  • 3. Update CrossMark Metadata!<updates> <update type="correction" label="Correction" date="2010-03-24">10.5555/1571</update>! </updates>
  • 4. Record CrossRef DOIs in HTML page metadata
  • 5. Add CrossMark metadata to PDFsMinimum = DOI, CrossMark Domain
  • PDF Metadata
  • 5. Display and Link the CrossMark Logo
  • 5. Display and Link the CrossMark LogoOn HTML article landing pages
  • 5. Display and Link the CrossMark LogoOn HTML article landing pages In PDF articles
  • 5. Display and Link the CrossMark LogoOn HTML article landing pages In PDF articles
  • 6. Decide on and collect additional metadata
  • What Does it Cost?
  • What Does it Cost? Cu rre Bac nt kfil con e c ten on t: 2 ten 0¢ t: 2 ¢
  • What Does it Cost? Cu rre Bac nt kfil con e c ten on t: 2 ten 0¢ t: 2 ¢Current Content = published in the past two years.
  • •CrossMark launched on 27th April2012
  • •CrossMark launched on 27th April2012•Over 60,000 CrossMark deposits sincelaunch with 350 plus updates
  • •CrossMark launched on 27th April2012•Over 60,000 CrossMark deposits sincelaunch with 350 plus updates•Working with over 20 publishers onCrossMark implementation
  • Marketing Microsite now availablehttp://www.crossref.org/crossmark/
  • •  American Institute of Physics! •  Rockefeller University Press!•  Cambridge University Press! •  The Royal Society !•  Elsevier! •  Scholar Science Journals!•  IEEE! •  Science Reviews 2000 Ltd!•  International Union for •  Wiley-Blackwell! Crystallography! •  Vilnius Gediminas Technical•  Mednet! University!•  Oxford University Press! •  World Bank!•  Philippine Association of Institutions for Research!•  Philosophy Documentation Center!
  • Any Questions?http://crossmarksupport.labs.crossref.org http://www.crossref.org/crossmark rlammey@crossref.org