CSE 2013 CrossCheck & CrossMark Presentation by Rachel Lammey
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•535 views
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to CSE 2013 CrossCheck & CrossMark Presentation by Rachel Lammey
Similar to CSE 2013 CrossCheck & CrossMark Presentation by Rachel Lammey (20)
More from Crossref
More from Crossref (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
CSE 2013 CrossCheck & CrossMark Presentation by Rachel Lammey
- 1. CSE Annual Meeting 2013 Rachael Lammey, Product Manager (rlammey@crossref.org) and
- 2. • 470 publishers • Over 34 million content items indexed • 86,000 titles • Over 50,000 documents being screened each month (80,000+ since March) • Total documents in checked 2012: 629,231 (compared to 291,470 in 2011)
- 3. 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 Dec-10 Mar-11 Jun-11 Sep-11 Dec-11 Mar-12 Jun-12 Sep-12 Dec-12 Mar-13 Documentsuploaded toiThen cate Documents uploaded
- 4. CrossCheck Survey 2012: • 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 • Who is using it and how? • Use of CrossCheck being communicated to authors • How can people get more information?
- 5. •CrossRef support & FAQ: http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck_faq.html •Formation of guidelines, best practices etc. •User group meetings •Webinars: http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck/index.html CrossCheck Community
- 6. • New features in iThenticate system: • Section Exclusion (Q2 2013) • File size increase (Q4 2013) • Speed (Nov 2012 and 2013) • CrossCheck Branding • More top-level report information • Document Viewer iThenticate Updates
- 9. Content changes When it does, readers need to know CrossMark
- 12. • 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 • Other important publication record information What is CrossMark?
- 16. What kind of Publication Record 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 • and more...
- 17. • CrossMark launched on 27th April 2012 • Over 60,000 CrossMark deposits since launch with 350 plus updates • Working with over 20 publishers on CrossMark implementation • Integration with FundRef and other future initiatives • Integration with third party tools Progress since launch:
Editor's Notes
- Product Manager at CrossRef. I ’ m going to talk to you about two of our services – CrossCheck and CrossMark, a 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 pertinent information as we go through.
- The progress of CrossCheck to date and to talk about the database. Publishers including Wiley, ACS, PeerJ, F1000 Research. Not just STM! Very comprehensive database - can see list of titles on our website.
- 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.
- And we are also building something of a CrossCheck community. We have a users email listserv that members are invited to use to ask questions or share experiences. In addition to the excellent support available from the iThenticate team, there are CrossRef staff such as myself available to help with setting up and running CC. And with the supporting CC committee we ’ re looking to create guidelines and best practices for use of CC, and template plagiarism policies for those publishers that may not have one of their own. How to follow-up on allegations: COPE etc.
- Lots of other things coming too – exclude small matches, being able to report on other factors than the similarity score. Ie. Largest source match and largest match based on no of words.
- 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.
- To determine the accessibility of retracted articles residing on non-publisher websites and in personal libraries. LIFE OF A RETRACTION YEST! Non-publisher websites provided 321 publicly accessible copies for 289 retracted articles: 304 (95%) copies were the publisher' versions, and 13 (4%) were final manuscripts. PubMed Central had 138 (43%) copies; educational websites 94 (29%); commercial websites 24 (7%); advocacy websites 16 (5%); and institutional repositories 10 (3%). Just 15 (5%) full-article views included a retraction statement. Personal Mendeley libraries contained records for 1,340 (75%) retracted articles, shared by 3.4 users, on average.
- 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.
- CrossMark addresses these problems.
- 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.
- 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 standardize this? I really like this example. Plus ‘info’ buttons. Funder Info too. Perhaps OA stuff as well. Copyright and licensing – how to communicate that in PDFs even if people aren’t on your site.
- 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.
- Elsevier 1250 titles, AIP all their titles, IUCr, F1000 Research, the Royal Society. Also working with Highwire, Ingenta etc.
- Elsevier – 1250, Wiley, F1000 Research. People are viewing CrossMark – we can break views down by publisher to show how many deposits they’ve made vs how many times the CM has been clicked-on. PDF, HTML, updates. More HTML clicks. Nearly 70,000. Nearly 10,000 on PDFs (consider the publishers). 4000 plus clicks on updates – things people otherwise would have missed.
- Microsoft Academic Search implemented CrossMark on their platform in early February and are displaying the CrossMark logo on relevant content within their index. This is a useful development in terms of being able to publicise CrossMark to affiliates and show ways in which the CrossMark data can be used to identify the publisher version of a piece of content.
- Marketing microsite too and banners to explain plus a screencast and sign up page and T&Cs. COSTS: 20 cents current content, 2 cents backfiles. Nothing to update. Webinars
- 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.