Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

How good is your metadata? Presenting participation reports


Published on

Laura Wilkinson Crossref

An interactive session to view and discuss how different Crossref members are doing with metadata completeness. Who fares best in terms of including abstracts, or text-mining links, or ORCID iDs? Crossref membership has extended to libraries and funders and scholars themselves, so we won’t just be looking at the “usual suspects”. We’ll also be asking for feedback and ideas for what checks to put in place for the next phase of Crossref participation reports. Drawing on findings from the Metadata 2020 initiative, we will also offer some insights into the barriers publishers and vendors face when collating and registering richer metadata, and advice for how to overcome them.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

How good is your metadata? Presenting participation reports

  1. 1. Laura J. Wilkinson Education Manager @laurajwilkinson
  2. 2. How good is your metadata? introducing Participation Reports...
  3. 3. Today’s menu ● Metadata context ● Tour of Participation Reports ● Barriers faced by publishers and vendors... ● … and advice for how to overcome them ● Metadata 2020 ● Interactive segment ● Participation Reports phase two Let’s begin with…
  4. 4. Crossref makes research outputs easy to find, cite, link, assess, and reuse. We’re a not-for-profit membership organization that exists to make scholarly communications better. Mission
  5. 5. Crossref metadata - research fuel Metadata in • Descriptive • Administrative • Structural Metadata out • manual search and APIs...
  6. 6. Some metadata is missing… We need to know where the gaps are
  7. 7. Tour of Participation Reports Supporting information:
  8. 8. Barriers ● Element not collected ● Element not extracted ● Different metadata workflows ● Old schema version ● Resources ● Lack of vendor support ● Lack of awareness/understanding
  9. 9. Barriers - breaking them down! (1) ● Element not collected - collect it ● Element not extracted - extract it ● Workflows - rich metadata in all ● Old schema version - update ● Resources - Education Strategy ● Vendor support - Participation Reports ● Aware & understand - Participation Reports
  10. 10. Barriers - breaking them down! (2) ● Clear goals ● Community support ● No additional cost to update metadata
  11. 11. ● Community group problem statements ● Projects (concluding this summer) ● | @metadata2020 |
  12. 12. Over to you... ● Further examples of Participation Reports ● Phase Two ○ any pain points we can address? ○ what other metadata elements would you like to see?
  13. 13. Summary: How good is your metadata? ● Metadata context ● Tour of Participation Reports ● Barriers and advice for how to overcome them ● Metadata 2020 ● What would you like to see in phase two?