Support Update (2011 CrossRef Workshops)
 

Support Update (2011 CrossRef Workshops)

on

  • 1,048 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,048
Views on SlideShare
1,048
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

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
  • Here are some general questions we get:Getting started – I just became a CR member, what do I do, involves troubleshooting of basic deposit issuesRoutine Requests End User requests – we’re seeing a lot more of these over the past year or so, they mainly involve questions about interfacing with our public tools like the SimpleText Query form, How do I look up a DOI, do you have DOIs for these articles my professor says you should, etc.Advanced Qs – questions about our APIs (or lack of APIs), more complex metadata issues (like handling older materials without publication dates or standard metadata), Requests for new features – mainly people asking for ways to query unformatted referencesToday, I’m going to focus on two emerging issues, - they’re actually chronic issues that bubble up occasionally but have become more challenging recently.The first is title management – we’ve made some changes in recent years , so I’ll review those and go into more depth about some trends we’re seeingThe second is DOI deletion, we’ll hopefully have some discussions about current practice and if they should change.
  • We have a number of title restrictions in place. They fall into two categories: ownership and metadata.First, ownership:This is a review for long time CR members, but for the rest of you: There are two levels of ownership: title and DOI. In our system, a title is “locked” to a single prefix, meaning only the prefix owner may update or create new DOIs for a title. This prevents other publishers from accidentally creating DOIs for titles they don’t own – this can happen because of co-publishing agreements, or during title transfers that aren’t clearly defined. We can now group prefixes - this doesn’t affect most of you, but some publishers have multiple prefixes. Each DOI also has an owner – typically the DOI owner = the title owner, but not always. This allows us to transfer DOIs from publisher to publisher without affecting the DOI itself, For example:DOIs are deposited for ‘journal of fake titles’ ,by default they are owned by the depositing prefix, which matches the title ownerJOFT is acquired by a publisher with prefix 10.1234.DOIs with the 10.5555 prefix need to be maintained by the new publisher, so we transfer ownership of the existing DOIs to prefix 10.1234.
  • Titles are created in our system this way – you send the first deposit of a title to the CR system, the CR system processes the deposit, and adds the title metadata to the title db.
  • Each successive deposit created a new title in our system. Weimplemented some title restrictions in 2007, prior to that we’d ask publishers to monitor their titles to make sure they were correct, then make any necessary edits after they were created – that wasn’t really scaleable, it’s better to stop problems before they happen- as you can see, if title data sent to us wasn’t consistent, all kinds of confusing records were created in our system.
  • 2007: implemented title checks we added some allowances for minor title variations like “The” vs “no The” etc.We still need to clean up messes from the pre-2007 era but these restrictions have prevented lots of messes – And it’s really highlighted some discrepancies between the practices prescribed by organizations that deal with multiple-publisher title (mainly the ISSN Centre, library of Congress etc.), and the actual practices used by publishers…this has become more of an issue lately
  • We love backfiles but we’re seeing more title management issues surrounding them…titles evolve, and especially now that we’re seeing more deposits that were published pre-ISSN (the 70s).ISSN can (and should) be assigned retroactively
  • Publisher decides all of these titles are confusing (or whatever) and publishes ‘Feline Obesity Online’, a complete archive of all FO content since
  • Online article citation:Surname, R, O’Name, W. 1962. Epidemiology of canine and feline obesity. Feline Obesity Online 8:445-452.Print citation:Surname, R, O’Name, W. 1962. Epidemiology of canine and feline obesity. Fe Weight Man 8:445-452.Let’s imagine that all DOIs dating back to 1963 have beendeposited under ‘Feline Obesity Online’…
  • CMS subscriberCited-by participantSo basically, maybe everyone will get the data they need, but they’ll have to jump through hoops to make sure it’s accurate.
  • Title List: useful for checking titles one-by-one, you can select by publisherTitle .csv file: linked from the title list – lists all title and coverage info for all publishersXML journal list: linked from our members area and lists title and coverage info as well~25,854 Journal titles~ = there are duplicatesCheck to make sure your titles are accurate and the listed coverage reflects what you think it should reflect – any coverage gaps should raise alarms, they mean something either isn’t deposited, or is deposited with the wrong metadata.
  • ~25,854 Journal titles~ = there are duplicatesCheck to make sure your titles are accurate and the listed coverage reflects what you think it should reflect – any coverage gaps should raise alarms, they mean something either isn’t deposited, or is deposited with the wrong metadata.
  • Other people care (libraries, database vendors)It makes matching easierIt makes citingthings easier
  • In recent years we’ve implemented title and ISSN comparison checks for all journal deposits. These checks have been very effective in preventing bad data from reaching our database. They’ve also revealed some discrepancies between common and recommended practice for title changes. As publishers deposit more historical data, we’d like to clarify some title management basics:All series (journal, book, conference proceedings) must have an ISSN.The ISSN is crucial for identifying a serial. If you are supplying us with data for older titles that predate ISSN assignment, you should request ISSNs from your ISSN agency as they can be assigned retroactively. This isn’t only for CrossRef’s convenience - libraries, database providers, and other organizations using your data will welcome (and often require) an ISSN for anything defined as a journal.A distinct ISSN must be supplied for each distinct version of a title.If your title changes significantly, you need to get new ISSNs (both print and online). This rule is established by the International ISSN Centre, not CrossRef, but we support and enforce it. Minor title changes (such as changing ‘and’ to ‘&’) don’t require a new ISSN.Original title: Journal of CrossRef MetadataMinor change (no new ISSN required): The Journal of CrossRef MetadataMajor change (new ISSN required): Journal of CrossRef Metadata QualityOnline versions of journals encompassing multiple historic print titles should each be assigned distinct print and online ISSNs.It’s common practice for publishers to publish all versions of a title as an online journal with a single ISSN. This isn’t recommended practice as it causes a lot of linking and citing confusion – you’ve essentially created two versions of a title. This is particularly confusing when volume and issue numbers overlap between title iterations.
  • If you have titles that have gone through name changes, you’ll need to pay attention to our title management policies.Titles in the CrossRef system are created from publisher metadata with the first deposit of a journal. Title and ISSN combinations are not verified with an external agency. A check digit validation is performed on every ISSN submitted in a deposit. Once a title or ISSN is introduced into the CrossRef system, a new publication with the same title or ISSN cannot be created without CrossRef intervention. The publisher determines the exact title and ISSN included in the deposit. At least one ISSN is required for each journal deposited with CrossRef, but publishers are encouraged to deposit all ISSN available for a title. If you are depositing a series that predates ISSNs, they can be assigned retroactively – there’s no charge for assigning ISSNs.The title / ISSN combination in your deposit must match the title / ISSN combination in our system. We do allow for minor variances, like Journal of… vs. The Journal of… or mixing and and &Publishers requesting significant changes to a title are instructed to request a new ISSN from the appropriate agency. This isn’t a CrossRef policy, it’s an ISSN Centre policy and is actively supported by the Library of Congress (for those of you in the US)5. Journals should be deposited with the correct title – sometimes journals appear online under the most current title. We really need to make sure that the title in our database is the original title, since that title will be used in citations, which turn into CrossRef queries. We can add multiple versions of a title to a title record to help with querying, but it’s important that DOIs be attached to the correct title.
  • Sometimes they need to be deleted:Created in error – publisher assigns DOIs to content that they do not ownUnsustainable - publisher assigns DOIs to content that is not onlineNot assigned to DOI-worthy content – accidentally assign DOIs to front matter or advertisements and don’t intent to maintain these DOIs~93,000 “deleted” DOIs
  • We don’t delete DOIs that we believe have been cited (current practice) – some examples of DOIs that have been deleted are:DOIs linked to advertisements, front matter, and other traditionally non-citeable material

Support Update (2011 CrossRef Workshops) Support Update (2011 CrossRef Workshops) Presentation Transcript

  • Support Update
  • Support?
  • Types of questions    
  • 1st Deposit 
  • Title Metadata Management
  •  System title: Journal of Fake Titles Deposit Title: The Journal of Fake Titles ✔ Deposit Title: The Journal of Fake T? ✖
  • +backfiles
  • Title evolution Journal of Cats A: Feline Obesity Feline Obesity Feline Weight Journal Journal of FelineWeight Management Management 1991 – 2010 ISSN:4444-4444 1968-1990 Journal of Cats B: ISSN: 3333-3333 Feline Behavior 1953-1967 2011ISSN: 1111-1111 ISSN: 6666-6666 1991 – present ISSN:5555-5555
  • Journal of FelineWeight Management Journal of Cats A: Feline Obesity Feline Obesity Online 1991 – 2010 1953-1967 ISSN: 4444- ISSN: 1111-1111 4444 Feline Weight Management Feline Obesity 1968-1990 JournalISSN: 3333-3333 2011, ISSN: 6666-6666
  • Online article citation: Surname, R, O‟Name, W. 1962. Epidemiology of canine and feline obesity. Feline Obesity Online 8:445-45 Print citation: Surname, R, O‟Name, W. 1962. Epidemiology of canine and feline obesity. Fe Weight Man 8:445-452.Querying CrossRef (alternate titles) Later, after a DOI-to-metadata query… I‟m not sure if this is Do you have a Yes, it is DOI for this 10.5555/foj.19 Are you sure? My „Fe Weight ?????? right, I‟m not going to use it. Also, I am citation? 62.43g5 query says the Man‟ is an going to blog about journal title for that DOI is „Feline alternate spelling of ?????? this every day for a week. Obesity Online‟ „Feline Obesity Online ?????? ?????
  • Querying CrossRef (no alternate titles) Do you have a DOI for this citation: *sigh* I guess I can‟t link to this article…my well- Surname, R, O‟Name, W. 1962. Epidemiology of canine and feline obesity. Fe Weight Man 8:445- funded colleagues will 452. have to find online research elsewhere. No.
  • Harvesting CrossRef data Give me DOIs *beep* here is UMMM Thank you for ISSN 6666- coverage coverage for this have a nice 6666 dating back to journal begins in day 2011… 1953 OAI-PMH Harvester
  • What you can do:   
  • 
  • “ ” Deleting DOIs 10.5555/whoops   
  • Current Procedure① ②
  • Deletion Criteria
  • Alternatives to deletion ✔10.5555/good_doi ✖10.5555/bad_doi ✔10.5555/good_doi 10.5555/bad_doiDOI query for DOI 10.5555/bad_doi metadata for 10.5555/good_doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.5555/bad_doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.5555/good_doi
  • Other alternatives