Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

The Future of CrossRef: What's in it for Publishers?

1,557
views

Published on

Presentation to Journals Committee of American Association of Publishers/Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division (AAP/PSP)

Presentation to Journals Committee of American Association of Publishers/Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division (AAP/PSP)

Published in: Business, Education

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,557
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
25
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Good morning - I’m very happy to be here today. I’m going to be providing a brief overview of what CrossRef is all about, what we do and what we are planning for the future. Many of your organizations or members, some even founding members, of CrossRef, so I know a number of you are very familiar with what do. However, I think that others of you will have heard of CrossRef and DOIs - digital object identifiers - but don’t really know in a lot of detail what CrossRef’s mission is - or that CrossRef is not just about reference linking.
  • 2. The Future of CrossRef: What’s in it for Publishers? Carol Anne Meyer Marketing and Business Development CrossRef American Association of Publishers Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division Journals Commitee October 20 2009 Wednesday, October 21, 2009 The title of my talk is The Future of CrossRef: What’s in it for publishers?
  • 3. Have your cheesecake and eat it too. © Copyright Rick Audet (Richard Audet). Wednesday, October 21, 2009 However, in recognition of our New York location my theme is really how CrossRef enables publishers to have their cheesecake and eat it too. Now usually this expression is used to mean that you can’t have it both ways or can’t have the best of both worlds but CrossRef enables publishers to collaborate to benefit the industry as a whole at the same time as improving their own businesses.
  • 4. Wednesday, October 21, 2009 To explain briefly the background of CrossRef’s formation I want to take a look at a set of standard journal article references - crucial component of scholarly communications. preserve the scholarly record - minutes of science. Content going online in 1990s publishers started signing bilateral linking agreements with each other and started using URLs to link to one another. Figure out the publisher, keep track of URL schemes, keep it all up-to-date
  • 5. Wednesday, October 21, 2009 But publishers quickly discovered that signing bilateral linking agreements with one another only benefited the lawyers and more importantly links are fragile and links break.
  • 6. Wednesday, October 21, 2009 For scholarly journal publishers have links break is not a good thing because it makes readers unhappy and they complain. The term Link Rot describes this phenomenon of links breaking.
  • 7. Photo: `R4cH3L on Flickr Wednesday, October 21, 2009 When a researcher is looking for high quality scholarly content you don’t want to retrieve the 404 - page not found error. Having this happen undermines trust in the scholarly system and in scholarly publishers.
  • 8. Strategic .org • CrossRef: membership association of publishers • Founded for strategic reasons: services best achieved collaboratively • 16 member board of directors from membership • Broad church: Commercial, societies, non-profits, university presses, OA publishers – 66% non-profit • A powerful NETWORK • All subjects: STM, humanities, social science, professional Wednesday, October 21, 2009 So at the end of 1999 a group of publishers got together and decided to collaborate to solve the problem and CrossRef was set up as a strategic org - CrossRef is a non-profit membership association of publishers with all members being equal. We were founded to provide services to publishers that are best achieved collaboratively - or doing those things that publishers can’t do on their own. We are run by and for publishers and we have a very broad church that includes all types of publishers. Network!
  • 9. CrossRef’s Mission To enable easy identification and use of trustworthy electronic content by promoting the cooperative development and application of a sustainable infrastructure Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2700 publishers and societies Almost 20,000 journal titles close to 36 million dois registered.
  • 10. CrossRef’s Mission To enable easy identification and use of trustworthy electronic content by promoting the cooperative development and application of a sustainable infrastructure Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2700 publishers and societies Almost 20,000 journal titles close to 36 million dois registered.
  • 11. CrossRef’s Mission To enable easy identification and use of trustworthy electronic content by promoting the cooperative development and application of a sustainable infrastructure Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2700 publishers and societies Almost 20,000 journal titles close to 36 million dois registered.
  • 12. How we fulfill our mission: ! Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Reference linking includes multiple content types, backfiles
  • 13. How we fulfill our mission: ! • Reference Linking Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Reference linking includes multiple content types, backfiles
  • 14. How we fulfill our mission: ! • Reference Linking • CitedBy Linking Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Reference linking includes multiple content types, backfiles
  • 15. How we fulfill our mission: ! • Reference Linking • CitedBy Linking • CrossRef Metadata Services Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Reference linking includes multiple content types, backfiles
  • 16. How we fulfill our mission: ! • Reference Linking • CitedBy Linking • CrossRef Metadata Services • CrossCheck Plagiarism Detection Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Reference linking includes multiple content types, backfiles
  • 17. How we fulfill our mission: ! • Reference Linking • CitedBy Linking • CrossRef Metadata Services • CrossCheck Plagiarism Detection • New initiatives like CrossMark and Contributor ID Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Reference linking includes multiple content types, backfiles
  • 18. Technical Infrastructure • Unique identification • Persistent citation and linking • Managed system – no broken links • Content discoverable Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 19. What’s in a name? Wednesday, October 21, 2009 uniquely identify/name a piece of electronic content serve as a stable, persistent link to that content’s location on the web A DOI persists throughout changes in copyright ownership or location because it’s just a name used to look up an address in an updateable directory
  • 20. What’s in a name? doi:10.1038/nphoton.2008.100 Wednesday, October 21, 2009 uniquely identify/name a piece of electronic content serve as a stable, persistent link to that content’s location on the web A DOI persists throughout changes in copyright ownership or location because it’s just a name used to look up an address in an updateable directory
  • 21. What’s in a name? Wednesday, October 21, 2009 uniquely identify/name a piece of electronic content serve as a stable, persistent link to that content’s location on the web A DOI persists throughout changes in copyright ownership or location because it’s just a name used to look up an address in an updateable directory
  • 22. What’s in a name? doi:10.1038/nphoton.2008.100 Wednesday, October 21, 2009 uniquely identify/name a piece of electronic content serve as a stable, persistent link to that content’s location on the web A DOI persists throughout changes in copyright ownership or location because it’s just a name used to look up an address in an updateable directory
  • 23. What’s in a name? Wednesday, October 21, 2009 uniquely identify/name a piece of electronic content serve as a stable, persistent link to that content’s location on the web A DOI persists throughout changes in copyright ownership or location because it’s just a name used to look up an address in an updateable directory
  • 24. What’s in a name? doi:10.1038/nphoton.2008.100 Wednesday, October 21, 2009 uniquely identify/name a piece of electronic content serve as a stable, persistent link to that content’s location on the web A DOI persists throughout changes in copyright ownership or location because it’s just a name used to look up an address in an updateable directory
  • 25. What’s in a name? Wednesday, October 21, 2009 uniquely identify/name a piece of electronic content serve as a stable, persistent link to that content’s location on the web A DOI persists throughout changes in copyright ownership or location because it’s just a name used to look up an address in an updateable directory
  • 26. What’s in a name? http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2008.100 Wednesday, October 21, 2009 uniquely identify/name a piece of electronic content serve as a stable, persistent link to that content’s location on the web A DOI persists throughout changes in copyright ownership or location because it’s just a name used to look up an address in an updateable directory
  • 27. What’s in a name? Wednesday, October 21, 2009 uniquely identify/name a piece of electronic content serve as a stable, persistent link to that content’s location on the web A DOI persists throughout changes in copyright ownership or location because it’s just a name used to look up an address in an updateable directory
  • 28. What’s in a name? http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2008.100 Wednesday, October 21, 2009 uniquely identify/name a piece of electronic content serve as a stable, persistent link to that content’s location on the web A DOI persists throughout changes in copyright ownership or location because it’s just a name used to look up an address in an updateable directory
  • 29. What’s in a name? http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2008.100 http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v2/n7/abs/nphoton.2008.100.html Wednesday, October 21, 2009 uniquely identify/name a piece of electronic content serve as a stable, persistent link to that content’s location on the web A DOI persists throughout changes in copyright ownership or location because it’s just a name used to look up an address in an updateable directory
  • 30. User clicks on CrossRef DOI reference link in Journal A Tani, N., N. Tomaru, M. Araki, AND K. Ohba. 1996. Genetic diversity and differentiation in populations of Japanese stone pine (Pinus pumila) in Japan. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26: 1454–1462.[CrossRef] Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 31. User clicks on CrossRef DOI reference link in Journal A Tani, N., N. Tomaru, M. Araki, AND K. Ohba. 1996. Genetic diversity and differentiation in populations of Japanese stone pine (Pinus pumila) in Japan. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26: 1454–1462.[CrossRef] DOI directory returns URL Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 32. User clicks on User accesses CrossRef DOI cited article in reference link in Journal B Journal A Tani, N., N. Tomaru, M. Araki, AND K. Ohba. 1996. Genetic diversity and differentiation in populations of Japanese stone pine (Pinus pumila) in Japan. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26: 1454–1462.[CrossRef] DOI directory returns URL Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 33. Business Infrastructure • One agreement with CrossRef is a linking agreement with all CrossRef participants • Business Model Neutral • Powerful Network Effects – value of network is proportional to the square of the number of users of the system Wednesday, October 21, 2009 obligations of membership = quid pro quo - level playing field.
  • 34. Business Infrastructure • One agreement with CrossRef is a linking agreement with all CrossRef participants • Business Model Neutral • Powerful Network Effects – value of network is proportional to the square of the number of users of the system Wednesday, October 21, 2009 obligations of membership = quid pro quo - level playing field.
  • 35. Business Infrastructure • One agreement with CrossRef is a linking agreement with all CrossRef participants • Business Model Neutral • Powerful Network Effects – value of network is proportional to the square of the number of users of the system Wednesday, October 21, 2009 obligations of membership = quid pro quo - level playing field.
  • 36. Business Infrastructure • One agreement with CrossRef is a linking agreement with all CrossRef participants • Business Model Neutral • Powerful Network Effects – value of network is proportional to the square of the number of users of the system Wednesday, October 21, 2009 obligations of membership = quid pro quo - level playing field.
  • 37. Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Registration of content with CrossRef - reference matching and use of DOIs for linking. Hop between different publisher systems.
  • 38. Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Registration of content with CrossRef - reference matching and use of DOIs for linking. Hop between different publisher systems.
  • 39. Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Registration of content with CrossRef - reference matching and use of DOIs for linking. Hop between different publisher systems.
  • 40. Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Registration of content with CrossRef - reference matching and use of DOIs for linking. Hop between different publisher systems.
  • 41. Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Registration of content with CrossRef - reference matching and use of DOIs for linking. Hop between different publisher systems.
  • 42. Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Registration of content with CrossRef - reference matching and use of DOIs for linking. Hop between different publisher systems.
  • 43. 2,883 publishers and societies 38,388,258 content items with DOIs 20,779 journals 87,971 books 16,433 conference proceedings Wednesday, October 21, 2009 backfile content -oldest content from 1665 and the philosophical transactions.
  • 44. So far this year • 1,774,480 current content CrossRef DOIs • 1,663,433 backfile content CrossRef DOIs • 4,416,861 updates • DOIs returned - 56% match Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 45. CrossRef Journal Deposits • 2,883 publishers 34,017,847 articles Photo :Ina Centaur Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 46. Journals • 30% of CrossRef’s failed queries are due to missing backfiles Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 47. CrossRef Book Deposits • 87,971 titles • 1,824,218 chapters/entries Photo by digicla Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 48. 30,000,000 Wednesday, October 21, 2009 End user clicks -driving traffic to publisher content each month.
  • 49. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 50. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 51. Citing Alternative Sources? When citing Magic 8-Balls: 1. List the question asked the Magic 8-Ball (in quotes). 2. Identify the location where you consulted the Magic 8-Ball. 3. List the manufacturer of the Magic 8-ball (in italics). 4. List the date that you consulted the Magic 8-Ball. Example: "Reply Hazy, Try Again Later." ["Will I get tenured?" Oasis Tavern, 6907 N. Sheridan Rd., Chicago, IL: Tyco Toys, Inc., January 12, 1998.] PMLA Alternative Source Citations http://www.pmla.org/altsource.html Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 52. Who’s Citing You? Discover how your publications are being cited and incorporate DOI links to the citing content into your online publication. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 53. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 54. Technology Est. 1996 8,500 schools, colleges & universities worldwide Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 55. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 56. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 57. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 58. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 59. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 60. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 61. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 62. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 63. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 64. Manuscript Triage Acceptance Submission Yes No Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Three obvious places where you might want to do plagiarism screening 1) On submission 2) At some defined point in the review and editorial process - - and obviously this is a massive over-simplification not in the least because this process varies widely form publisher to publisher 3) Just prior to acceptance Two less obvious places you might want to do it: 1) Prior to submission (author checks) 2) After publication (e.g. to check backfiles, etc) And we have CrossCheck members taking each of these approaches, with no particular pattern emerging yet, although author checking is less popular than on submission or just prior to acceptance. Still- a key question no matter where you insert PD is “what do you check?” Everything or a subset?
  • 65. Manuscript Triage Acceptance Submission Yes No On Submission? Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Three obvious places where you might want to do plagiarism screening 1) On submission 2) At some defined point in the review and editorial process - - and obviously this is a massive over-simplification not in the least because this process varies widely form publisher to publisher 3) Just prior to acceptance Two less obvious places you might want to do it: 1) Prior to submission (author checks) 2) After publication (e.g. to check backfiles, etc) And we have CrossCheck members taking each of these approaches, with no particular pattern emerging yet, although author checking is less popular than on submission or just prior to acceptance. Still- a key question no matter where you insert PD is “what do you check?” Everything or a subset?
  • 66. Manuscript Triage Acceptance Submission Yes No On Submission? Triage? Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Three obvious places where you might want to do plagiarism screening 1) On submission 2) At some defined point in the review and editorial process - - and obviously this is a massive over-simplification not in the least because this process varies widely form publisher to publisher 3) Just prior to acceptance Two less obvious places you might want to do it: 1) Prior to submission (author checks) 2) After publication (e.g. to check backfiles, etc) And we have CrossCheck members taking each of these approaches, with no particular pattern emerging yet, although author checking is less popular than on submission or just prior to acceptance. Still- a key question no matter where you insert PD is “what do you check?” Everything or a subset?
  • 67. Manuscript Triage Acceptance Submission Yes No Prior to acceptance? On Submission? Triage? Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Three obvious places where you might want to do plagiarism screening 1) On submission 2) At some defined point in the review and editorial process - - and obviously this is a massive over-simplification not in the least because this process varies widely form publisher to publisher 3) Just prior to acceptance Two less obvious places you might want to do it: 1) Prior to submission (author checks) 2) After publication (e.g. to check backfiles, etc) And we have CrossCheck members taking each of these approaches, with no particular pattern emerging yet, although author checking is less popular than on submission or just prior to acceptance. Still- a key question no matter where you insert PD is “what do you check?” Everything or a subset?
  • 68. Manuscript Triage Acceptance Submission Yes No Prior to acceptance? Author? On Submission? Triage? Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Three obvious places where you might want to do plagiarism screening 1) On submission 2) At some defined point in the review and editorial process - - and obviously this is a massive over-simplification not in the least because this process varies widely form publisher to publisher 3) Just prior to acceptance Two less obvious places you might want to do it: 1) Prior to submission (author checks) 2) After publication (e.g. to check backfiles, etc) And we have CrossCheck members taking each of these approaches, with no particular pattern emerging yet, although author checking is less popular than on submission or just prior to acceptance. Still- a key question no matter where you insert PD is “what do you check?” Everything or a subset?
  • 69. Manuscript Triage Acceptance Submission Yes No Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 70. Manuscript Triage Acceptance Submission Yes No $£€¥ Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 71. Manuscript Triage Acceptance Submission Yes No $£€¥ # Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 72. 60 publishers 23 million content items indexed 27,000 titles 3-4000 manuscripts checked per month Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 73. Deterrence Factor Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 74. Trustworthy Content • CrossMark Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 75. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 76. Sir Tim told BBC News that there needed to be new systems that would give websites a label for trustworthiness once they had been proved reliable sources…So I'd be interested in different organisations labeling websites in different ways. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 77. Industry Problems Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 78. Industry Problems • The publishing process is invisible Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 79. Industry Problems • The publishing process is invisible • Trust metrics have not been established on the web Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 80. Industry Problems • The publishing process is invisible • Trust metrics have not been established on the web • The common belief that the publisher’s job is done on publication of the “final” version Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 81. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 82. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 83. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 84. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 85. Cross ark Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 86. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 87. The Society of Psychoceramicists Dulce et Decorum Est Desipere in Loco Psychoceramics Review Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 88. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 89. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 90. Publisher Version Crackpot Press Journal of Psychoceramics Peer Reviewed: Yes Review Type: Double Blind Number of Reviewers: 3 Copyedited: Yes References Checked: Yes CrossChecked: Yes Protocols: Carberry Protocol on Hum Funding: 30% NEA, 10% Mellon DOI: 10.1037/1114-007-X Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 91. erratum Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 92. corrigendum Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 93. enhanced Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 94. retracted Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 95. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 96. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 97. Identity Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 98. Three Identity Problems Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 99. swo rds: me /Pas Una bank : 12345 ent: 12 345cam retirem mom’s stem: edito rial sy bi rthday 1. Authentication and Authorization: How do I get to what I want? Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Solutions include OpenId, Shibboleth
  • 100. Shibboleth Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Open ID is user centric--claim your own id Shibboleth is Institution verified Vince Smith http://vsmith.info/OpenID
  • 101. 2. Name Variations: How can I tell if that’s the same person? Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 102. Carol Anne Meyer Meyer, Carol Anne Carol A. Meyer Meyer, Carol A. Meyer, C.A. C.A. Meyer Carol Meyer Meyer, Carol C. Meyer Meyer, C. Ms. Meyer Mrs. Meyer Carol Meyer Ruben Mrs. Ruben Mrs. Ruben-Meyer Mommy foodislove Wednesday, October 21, 2009 These are all legitimate names for me.
  • 103. 3. Disambiguation: How do I know which one? Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 104. Egosurfing Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Multiple authors can have the same name
  • 105. Not Me :( Egosurfing Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Multiple authors can have the same name
  • 106. Not Me :( Not Me :( Egosurfing Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Multiple authors can have the same name
  • 107. Not Me :( Not Me :( Not Me :( Egosurfing Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Multiple authors can have the same name
  • 108. Not Me :( Not Me :( Not Me :( Egosurfing Not Me :( Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Multiple authors can have the same name
  • 109. Not Me :( Not Me :( Not Me :( Egosurfing Not Me :( Me ? Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Multiple authors can have the same name
  • 110. Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Zoominfo is an example of claiming Problem is aging and abandoned data.
  • 111. Me ! But... Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Zoominfo is an example of claiming Problem is aging and abandoned data.
  • 112. Me ! But... Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Zoominfo is an example of claiming Problem is aging and abandoned data.
  • 113. John Smith John Smith John Smith John Smith John Smith John Smith John Smith John Smith Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 114. Li (Lee), Wang, Zhang, Liu, Chen, Yang, Huang, Zhao, Zhou, Wu, Xu, Sun, Zhu, Ma, Hu, Guo, Ln, He, Gao, Liang, Zheng, Luo, Song, Xie, Tang, Han, Cao, Xu, Deng, Xiao Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Much worse with lots of asian authors – fewer surnames.
  • 115. Jane Doe Jane Bloggs Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Names changes
  • 116. Cross-ID? Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Classic problems of identity – CR is in a position to do something cross- eyed.
  • 117. Cross-ID? Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Classic problems of identity – CR is in a position to do something cross- eyed.
  • 118. Author ID Contributor ID Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Internal holding name – talked to you about some of the problems with name authority but publishers have some specific problems with use of manuscript tracking systems – so authentication is a real issue. So we must address both authorization and disambiguation. Why not just authors? reviewers, editors, correspondents, bloggers, commenters
  • 119. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 120. Knowledge Discovery Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Use Cases? Knowledge Discovery: * Determine what IDs authored/edited/reviewed document X * What documents where authored/edited/reviewed by ID Y * What IDs are related to ID Z and what is the nature of that relationship (e.g. co-authored, edited, reviewed) * What (subject to privacy settings) is the profile information for ID Z (e.g. institutional affiliation, email address, etc.) * All the author IDs and their respective publications where the institutional affiliation recorded by the author is X * Etc. At this point I feel obliged to point out that the bulk of our requirements gathering has been focused on trying to understand the needs of our member publishers. The reason I mention this here is that the bulk of the “authentication” use cases that we identified are all focused around making publisher back-office systems less cumbersome. So, for instance, publishers are interested in using a “contributor id” for: * single sign-on (SSO) for manuscript tracking systems * Disambiguating contact information for use by editorial offices, royalty payments systems, copyright clearances, etc. * Automatic updating of email addresses for table of contents (TOC) alerts and other automated email communications
  • 121. Authentication and Authorization Knowledge Discovery Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Use Cases? Knowledge Discovery: * Determine what IDs authored/edited/reviewed document X * What documents where authored/edited/reviewed by ID Y * What IDs are related to ID Z and what is the nature of that relationship (e.g. co-authored, edited, reviewed) * What (subject to privacy settings) is the profile information for ID Z (e.g. institutional affiliation, email address, etc.) * All the author IDs and their respective publications where the institutional affiliation recorded by the author is X * Etc. At this point I feel obliged to point out that the bulk of our requirements gathering has been focused on trying to understand the needs of our member publishers. The reason I mention this here is that the bulk of the “authentication” use cases that we identified are all focused around making publisher back-office systems less cumbersome. So, for instance, publishers are interested in using a “contributor id” for: * single sign-on (SSO) for manuscript tracking systems * Disambiguating contact information for use by editorial offices, royalty payments systems, copyright clearances, etc. * Automatic updating of email addresses for table of contents (TOC) alerts and other automated email communications
  • 122. Pyschoceramics Review Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Study of cracked pots. Author submits manuscript –first time for the journal. So the journal says – who are you? Go get an ID from CrossRef – registers and gets identity to provide to journal. Claim things like what’s they’ve published in the past –institution, homepage. Interesting thing
  • 123. Pyschoceramics Review Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Study of cracked pots. Author submits manuscript –first time for the journal. So the journal says – who are you? Go get an ID from CrossRef – registers and gets identity to provide to journal. Claim things like what’s they’ve published in the past –institution, homepage. Interesting thing
  • 124. Pyschoceramics Review ? Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Study of cracked pots. Author submits manuscript –first time for the journal. So the journal says – who are you? Go get an ID from CrossRef – registers and gets identity to provide to journal. Claim things like what’s they’ve published in the past –institution, homepage. Interesting thing
  • 125. Pyschoceramics Review ? Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Study of cracked pots. Author submits manuscript –first time for the journal. So the journal says – who are you? Go get an ID from CrossRef – registers and gets identity to provide to journal. Claim things like what’s they’ve published in the past –institution, homepage. Interesting thing
  • 126. Pyschoceramics Review ? cmeyer.crossref.org Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Study of cracked pots. Author submits manuscript –first time for the journal. So the journal says – who are you? Go get an ID from CrossRef – registers and gets identity to provide to journal. Claim things like what’s they’ve published in the past –institution, homepage. Interesting thing
  • 127. Pyschoceramics Review ? cmeyer.crossref.org Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Study of cracked pots. Author submits manuscript –first time for the journal. So the journal says – who are you? Go get an ID from CrossRef – registers and gets identity to provide to journal. Claim things like what’s they’ve published in the past –institution, homepage. Interesting thing
  • 128. Pyschoceramics Review Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Interesting thing – article is published and metadata goes to CrossRef – author IDs can be sent too. Once CR has them then we can figure out what that author has published (not just what they claim they’ve published). Publishers are verifying author claims. Multiple levels of claims – some more authoritative than others. Series of different trust measures.
  • 129. Pyschoceramics Review DOI Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Interesting thing – article is published and metadata goes to CrossRef – author IDs can be sent too. Once CR has them then we can figure out what that author has published (not just what they claim they’ve published). Publishers are verifying author claims. Multiple levels of claims – some more authoritative than others. Series of different trust measures.
  • 130. Pyschoceramics Review DOI + cmeyer.crossref.org Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Interesting thing – article is published and metadata goes to CrossRef – author IDs can be sent too. Once CR has them then we can figure out what that author has published (not just what they claim they’ve published). Publishers are verifying author claims. Multiple levels of claims – some more authoritative than others. Series of different trust measures.
  • 131. Wednesday, October 21, 2009 1. Lookup all contributors associated with a particular DOI 
  • 132. DOI Wednesday, October 21, 2009 1. Lookup all contributors associated with a particular DOI 
  • 133. Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2. Lookup all DOIs associated with a contributor 
  • 134. DOI DOI DOI DOI DOI Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2. Lookup all DOIs associated with a contributor 
  • 135. Profile: Name Email Affiliation Field etc. Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3.Lookup pro;ile metadata associated with a speci;ied contributor 
  • 136. CoAuthors Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4. Lookup all contributors associated with another contributor and the type of association that exists between them (co‐author, co‐cited, etc.) 
  • 137. CoAuthors Reviewer Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4. Lookup all contributors associated with another contributor and the type of association that exists between them (co‐author, co‐cited, etc.) 
  • 138. cmeyer.crossref.org Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 139. cmeyer.crossref.org DOI:10.1234/0001234 DOI:10.4321/0005678 DOI:10.1234/0005678 Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 140. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 141. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 142. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 143. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 144. Where we are... Photo: Josh Swieringa Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Prototyping
  • 145. Find out more... • Researcher Identification Primer www.gen2phen.org/researcher-identification-primer • CrossTech Blog http://www.crossref.org/CrossTech/ • Gobbledygook, 17 Feb 2009, Martin Fenner’s interview of Geoff Bilder http://network.nature.com/people/mfenner/blog/2009/02/17/ interview-with-geoffrey-bilder • “Are You Ready to Become a Number?” Martin Enserink, Science 27 March 2009: 1662-1664, DOI: 10.1126/science.323.5922.1662 • “I Am Not a Scientist, I Am a Number.” Philip Bourne and PE Fink (2008) PLoS Comput Biol 4(12): e1000247. DOI:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000247 Wednesday, October 21, 2009 So, what’s happening now? Discussions around "contributor Ids" (aka "Author ID, Researcher ID, etc.) seem to be becoming quite popular. In the interview that I pointed to in my last post, I mentioned that CrossRef has been talking with a group of researchers who were very interested in creating some sort of authenticated contributor ID as a mechanism for controlling who gets trusted access to sensitive genome-wide aggregate genotype data. Well, I'm delighted to say that said group of researchers(at the GEN2PHEN project) have created a "Researcher Identification Primer" website in which they outline the many use-cases and issues around creating a mechanism for unambiguously identifying and/or authenticating researchers. This looks like a great resource and I expect it will serve as a useful focus for further discussion around the issue.
  • 146. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 147. • CrossRef lets publishers have their cake and eat it too Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 148. • CrossRef lets publishers have their cake and eat it too • CrossRef provides infrastructure to enable publishers to enhance their content and services Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 149. • CrossRef lets publishers have their cake and eat it too • CrossRef provides infrastructure to enable publishers to enhance their content and services • CrossRef services drive traffic to publishers content Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 150. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 151. • CrossRef services will enable publishers to highlight the value they add to content Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 152. • CrossRef services will enable publishers to highlight the value they add to content • CrossRef services will give researchers useful tools to make decisions about content Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 153. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 154. • If it’s not online it doesn’t exist Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 155. • If it’s not online it doesn’t exist • If it’s not linked it doesn’t exist Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 156. • If it’s not online it doesn’t exist • If it’s not linked it doesn’t exist • PDF warehouses are complete - the next stage is semantically enhanced content Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 157. • If it’s not online it doesn’t exist • If it’s not linked it doesn’t exist • PDF warehouses are complete - the next stage is semantically enhanced content • Publishers are moving from production houses to informatics houses Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 158. What’s in it for publishers? • No publisher is an island - collaboration and connection is the key Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 159. Reciprocal Linking Photo by Joi Ito Wednesday, October 21, 2009
  • 160. Carol Anne Meyer cmeyer@crossref.org Wednesday, October 21, 2009