Best Practices on Crossref

The best way of acknowledging research funding in the metadata: Crossref Grant ID

Patricia Feeney — Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000

We are very pleased to kick off the New Year with another important schema update and the news that a Grant DOI field is now supported for all record types. This means that Crossref members can explicitly include the Crossref Grant IDs as part of their DOI metadata records for publications and any other output type, accurately linking research outputs to the funding that made it possible, all through metadata. We hope that our members will leverage this to respond to recent calls for stronger funding transparency and best practices for reporting funding sources in research outputs.

Funding information is very important for the research community. As explored by some key European funder representatives, providing mechanisms to clearly link funding with its outputs is essential for the community to have a full picture of the research endeavour.

When funders systematically register grants with persistent identifiers and make this information openly available, they create a foundation that publishers and infrastructure providers such as repositories can reliably build upon when depositing output metadata.”

– Hans de Jonge, Katharina Rieck and Zoé Ancion

Up until now, if a Crossref member wanted to include a Crossref Grant ID to unambiguously identify the output funding source, they would need to use other available fields, such as for an award number. While it was an important step towards increasing transparency and is heavily used for reporting and impact assessment, being an unstructured field, it was prone to errors, and of course, funders’ internal award identifiers are not unique, persistent, or necessarily open. This limited our ability to create unambiguous relationships with the Crossref Grant DOIs registered by our now ~50 funder members. As the new field becomes increasingly populated by our members, this rich metadata will pave the way for capturing and representing the funding relationships in a more accurate and complete way and fulfilling one of our commitments at the recent funding metadata workshop with the Barcelona Declaration.

The Crossref Grant ID field in the schema is a clear signal of the growing demand for these persistent Grant IDs (Crossref DOIs), and the relationships these help us create. Those connections can in turn enable streamlined reporting for the grantees, as well as compliance tracking and programme evaluation for funders.

As part of our work to enable the research nexus, Crossref has been proactively identifying funding information and prototyping metadata enrichment processes through matching projects, ensuring that as many relationships as possible are established and made discoverable. With this schema update, we aim to lower barriers and encourage more members to register output-funding relationships at source. This will facilitate the links that make the research nexus a connected, interoperable, and an important source of information that ensures a transparent and trustworthy research process.

We encourage all Crossref members to start incorporating Grant DOIs when available into your metadata submissions. By taking advantage of this new field, you’ll help build a more complete and transparent record of research funding, making it easier for the community to understand and trace the impact of funded research.

When collecting funding information for your publication, please consider asking the authors for the Grant DOI (Crossref Grant ID) as well as the funder’s details (such as their name and identifier). Here’s how the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information’s (OSTI-DOE) grant https://doi-org.pluma.sjfc.edu/10.46936/aps-182101/60010611 can be included in the metadata for related works, from datasets, to preprints, conference proceedings, journal articles, and more:

<assertion name="fundgroup">
 <assertion name="ror">https://ror.org/04qxsr837</assertion>
 <assertion name="grant_doi">10.46936/aps-182101/60010611</assertion>
 </assertion>

Similarly, a grant https://doi-org.pluma.sjfc.edu/10.3030/732489 from European Union H2020-EU.2.1.1. - INDUSTRIAL LEADERSHIP, would be represented in related work’s metadata as follows:

<assertion name="fundgroup">
 <assertion name="funder_name”>H2020 LEIT Information and Communication Technologies
 <assertion name="funder_identifier”>10.13039/100010669</assertion>
 </assertion>
 <assertion name="grant_doi">10.3030/732489</assertion>
</assertion>

For more technical documentation and implementation guidance, please visit our funding data documentation. If you have questions or need support integrating Grant IDs into your workflow, our support team is here to help!

Re-introducing Participation Reports to encourage best practices in open metadata

Lena Stoll — Thu, 25 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0000

We’ve just released an update to our participation report, which provides a view for our members into how they are each working towards best practices in open metadata. Prompted by some of the signatories and organizers of the Barcelona Declaration, which Crossref supports, and with the help of our friends at CWTS Leiden, we have fast-tracked the work to include an updated set of metadata best practices in participation reports for our members. The reports now give a more complete picture of each member’s activity.

What do we mean by ‘participation’?

Crossref runs open infrastructure to link research objects, entities, and actions, creating a lasting and reusable scholarly record. As a not-for-profit with over 20,000 members in 160 countries, we drive metadata exchange and support nearly 2 billion monthly API queries, facilitating global research communication.

To make this system work, members strive to provide as much metadata as possible through Crossref to ensure it is openly distributed throughout the scholarly ecosystem at scale rather than bilaterally, thereby realizing the collective benefit of membership. Together, our membership provides and uses a rich nexus of information— known as the research nexus—on which the community can build tools to help progress knowledge.

Each member commits to certain terms, such as keeping metadata current, updating links for their DOIs to redirect to, linking references and other objects, and preserving their content in perpetuity. Beyond this, we also encourage members to register as much rich metadata as is relevant and possible.

Creating and providing richer metadata is a key part of participation in Crossref; we’ve long encouraged a more complete scholarly record, such as through Metadata 20/20, and through supporting or leading initiatives for specific metadata, like open citations (I4OC), open abstracts (I4OA), open contributors (ORCID), and open affiliations (ROR).

Which metadata elements are considered best practices?

Alongside basic bibliographic metadata such as title, authors, and publication date(s), we encourage members to register metadata in the following fields:

Example participation report for Crossref member University of Szeged

References

A list of all the references used by a work. This is particularly relevant for journal articles but the references can include any type of object, including datasets, versions, preprints, and more. Additionally, we encourage these to be added into relationships, where relevant.

Abstracts

A description of the work. These are particularly useful for discovery systems that will promote the work, and are often used in downstream analyses such as for detecting integrity issues.

Contributor IDs (ORCID)

All authors should be included in a work’s metadata, ideally alongside their verified ORCID identifier.

Affiliations / Affiliation IDs (ROR)

Members are able to register contributor affiliations as free text, but we are encouraging everyone to add ROR IDs for affiliations as the recommended best practice, as this differentiates and avoids mistyping. These two fields have newly been added to the participation reports interface in the most recent update.

Funder IDs (OFR)

Acknowledging the organisation(s) that funded the work. We encourage the inclusion of Open Funder Registry identifiers to make the funding metadata more usable. This will evolve into an additional use case for ROR over time.

Funding award numbers / Grant IDs (Crossref)

A number or identifier assigned by the funding organisation to identify the specific award of funding or other support such as use of equipment or facilities, prizes, tuition, etc. The Crossref Grant Linking System includes a unique persistent link that can be connected with outputs, activities, people, and organisations.

Crossmark

The Crossmark service gives readers quick and easy access to the current status of a record, including any corrections, retractions, or updates, via a button embedded on PDFs or a web article. Openly adding corrections, retractions, and errata is critical part of publishing, and the button provides readers with an easy in-context alert.

Similarity Check URLs

The Similarity Check service helps editors to identify text-based plagiarism through our collective agreement for the membership to access to Turnitin’s powerful text comparison tool, iThenticate. Specific full-text links are required to participate in this service.

License URLs

URLs pointing to a license that explains the terms and conditions under which readers can access content. These links are crucial to denote intended downstream use.

Text mining URLs

Full-text URLs that help researchers in meta-science easily locate your content for text and data mining.

What is a participation report?

Participation reports are are a visualization of the data representing members’ participation to the scholarly record which is available via our open REST API. There’s a separate participation report for each member, and each report shows what percentage of that member’s metadata records include 11 key metadata elements. These key elements add context and richness, and help to open up members’ work to easier discovery and wider and more varied use. As a member, you can use participation reports to see for yourself where the gaps in your organisation’s metadata are, and perhaps compare your performance to others. Participation reports are free and open to everyone - so you can also check the report for any other members you are interested in.

We first introduced participation reports in 2018. At the time, Anna Tolwinska and Kirsty Meddings wrote:

Metadata is at the heart of all our services. With a growing range of members participating in our community—often compiling or depositing metadata on behalf of each other—the need to educate and express obligations and best practice has increased. In addition, we’ve seen more and more researchers and tools making use of our APIs to harvest, analyze and re-purpose the metadata our members register, so we’ve been very aware of the need to be more explicit about what this metadata enables, why, how, and for whom.

All of that still rings true today. But as the research nexus continues to evolve, so should the tools that intend to reflect it. For example, in 2022, we removed the Open references field from participation reports after a board vote to change our policy and update the membership terms meant that all references deposited with Crossref would be open by default. And now we’ve expanded the list of fields again, adding coverage data for contributor affiliation text and ROR identifiers.

Putting it in practice

To find out how you measure up when it comes to participation, type the name of your member organisation into the search box. You may be surprised by what you find—we often speak to members who thought they were registering a certain type of metadata for all their records, only to learn from their participation report that something is getting lost along the way.

You can only address gaps in your metadata if you know that they exist.

More information, as well as a breakdown of the now 11 key metadata elements listed in every participation report and tips on improving your scores, is available in our documentation.

And if you have any questions or feedback, come talk to us on the community forum or request a metadata Health Check by emailing the community team.

Shooting for the stars – ASM’s journey towards complete metadata

Kornelia Korzec — Tue, 14 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0000

At Crossref, we care a lot about the completeness and quality of metadata. Gathering robust metadata from across the global network of scholarly communication is essential for effective co-creation of the research nexus and making the inner workings of academia traceable and transparent. We invest time in community initiatives such as Metadata 20/20 and Better Together webinars. We encourage members to take time to look up their participation reports, and our team can support you if you’re looking to understand and improve any aspects of metadata coverage of your content.

In 2022, we have observed with delight the growth of one of our members from basic coverage of their publications to over 90% in most areas, and no less than 70% of the corpus is covered by all key types of metadata Crossref enables (see their own participation report for details). Here, Deborah Plavin and David Haber share the story of ASM’s success and lessons learnt along the way.

Could you introduce your organisation?

The American Society for Microbiology publishes 16 peer-reviewed journals advancing the microbial sciences, from food microbiology, to genomics and the microbiome, comprising 14% of all microbiology articles. Six of those are open-access journals, and 56% of ASM’s published papers are open access. Together, our journals contribute 25% of all microbiology citations.

Would you tell us a little more about yourselves?

DH: David Haber, Publishing Operations Director at the American Society for Microbiology. I live in a century-old house that is in a perpetual state of renovation due to my inability to stop starting new projects before I complete old ones.

DP: Deborah Plavin, Digital Publishing Manager at the American Society for Microbiology. Following David’s example, my apartment in Washington D.C. is just up the block from one of the homes Duke Ellington lived in https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=142334.

What value do society publishers in general see in metadata in your view?

DP: In my view, robust metadata allows publishers to look at changes over time, do comparative analysis within and across research areas, more easily identify trends, and plan for future analysis (e.g., if we deposit data citation information and we change our processes to make it more straightforward, do we see any change in the percentage of articles that include that information, etc.).

DH: To echo Deborah’s point, to be able to name something distinctly and clearly identify its specific attributes is vital to understanding past research and planning for future possibilities. One of our fundamental roles as a publisher for a non-profit society is to properly lay this metadata foundation so that we can provide services and new venues for our members, authors, and readers that match their needs and track with the trends in research. Without good and robust metadata, it is impossible to truly understand the direction in which our community is pointing us.

Metadata for your own research outputs in the last year has grown rapidly. Why such focus on metadata in 2022?

DP: This is something that ASM has been chipping away at over time. Years ago we found that it wasn’t always easy to take advantage of deposits that included new kinds of metadata. That was either because we needed to work out how and where to capture it in the process or because platform providers weren’t always ready — coming up with ways to process the XML that publishers supply in many different ways takes time. These back-end processes that feed the infrastructure aren’t usually of great interest to stakeholders, and so it allowed us to play around, flounder, fail, refine, and try again.

We looked at having 3rd parties deposit metadata for us, and while that helped expand the kind of metadata we were delivering, it created workflow challenges of its own. What turned out to be most effective was budgeting for content cleanup projects and depositing updated and more robust metadata to Crossref.

We also benefited from a platform migration, which allowed us to take advantage of additional resources during that process.

DH: Coming from a production background, I have always been fascinated with the when and how of capturing key metadata during the publishing process. When are those data good and valuable, and when should they be tossed or cleaned up for downstream deliveries? Because Deborah and ASM directors saw a more complete Crossref metadata set for our corpus as a truly valuable target, we were able to really think hard about what kind of data we were capturing and when, how those requirements may have influenced our various policies and copyediting requirements over the years, and how best to re-engineer our processes with the goal of good metadata capture throughout our publishing workflows. From our perspective, Crossref gave us a target, a “this-is-cool-bit-of-info" that Crossref can collect in a deposit; therefore, how can we capture that during our processes while driving further efficiencies? ASM journals had been so driven by legacy print workflows that such a change in perspective (toward metadata as a publishing object) really allowed us to re-imagine almost everything we do as a publisher.

Has the OSTP memo influenced your effort?

DP: I think that the Nelson memo hasn’t changed our focus; instead, I think it’s been another data point supporting our efforts and work in this area.

DH: Deborah is exactly right. The release of this memo only re-affirmed our commitment to creating complete and rich metadata. The Nelson memo points to many possible paths forward, in terms of both Open Access and Open Science, but we feel our work on improving our metadata outputs positions us well to pick a path that best suits our goals as a non-profit society publisher.

How big was this effort? Could you draw us a picture of how many colleagues or parts of the organisation were involved? Did you involve any external stakeholders, such as authors, editors, or others?

DH: It was simple. Took five minutes… In all seriousness, the key is having the support of the organisation as a whole. To do this properly, it is vitally important to know the end from the beginning, so to speak. It is one thing to say let’s start capturing ORCID IDs and deliver them to Crossref, but it is completely another to create a cohesive process in which those IDs are authenticated and validated throughout the workflow. So something as simple as a statement “ORCID IDs seem cool, let’s try to capture them” could affect how researchers submit files, how reviewers log into various systems (i.e., ORCID as SSO), how data are passed to production vendors, what copyeditors and XML QC people need to be focused on, and what integrations authors may expect at the time of publication. Being part of an organisation that embraced such change allowed us to proceed with care with each improvement to the metadata we made.

But that is more about incremental improvement. The beginning of this process started when we were making upgrades to our online publishing platform, and we were trying to figure out how best to get DOIs registered for our older content. When we started looking at this, we soon realized that, sure, we could do the bare minimum and just assign DOIs to this older content outside the source XML/SGML, but did that make sense? Wouldn’t it make more sense, especially since we were updating the corpus to a new DTD, to populate the source content with these newly assigned DOIs? Once we decided that we were going to revise the older content with DOIs, it made sense for us to create a custom XSL transform routine to generate Crossref deposits that would capture as much metadata as possible. So, working with a vendor to clean and update our content for one project (an online platform update) allowed us also to make massive improvements to our Crossref metadata as a side benefit.

Of course, I do have to apologize to the STM community for the Crossref outages in late 2019. That was just me depositing thousands of records in batches one sleepless night.

What were the key challenges you encountered in this project, and how did you overcome them?

DH: Resources and time are always an issue. Much of the work was done in-house in spare moments captured here and there. But there are great resources in github and at Crossref to help focus on defining what is important and what is possible in such a project. And, honestly, defining what was important and weighing that against the effort to find said important bit in the corpus of articles we have was the most challenging part of this process. In other words, limiting the focus. Once one decides to start looking at the inconsistencies in older content, it is hard not to say: “Oh, look. That semi-important footnote was treated as a generic author note rather than a conflict-of-interest statement; let’s fix that.” Once you start down that path, you can spend years fiddling with stuff. For me, a key mantra was: “We now have access to the content. We can always do another Crossref metadata update if things change or shift over time.”

Have there been any important milestones along the way you were able to celebrate? Or any set-backs you had to resolve in the process?

DP: For as long as I can remember, the importance of good metadata has been among the loudest messages of best practice in the industry. I don’t think that I have been able to really quantify/ demonstrate the value of that work. Looking at the consistent increases in the Crossref monthly resolution reports that we saw between 2015 and 2022 and looking at our participation reports has helped provide some measure of progress. For example, the number of average monthly successful resolutions in that Crossref report in 2015 was ~390,000. The last time I checked, the 2022 numbers were ~ 3.7 million. In 2023, I hope that we will be able to leverage Event Data for this as well.

The setbacks have fallen into two categories: timing and process. Our internal resourcing to get this done within our preferred time frame, to have the content loaded and delivered, and triage problems—it’s a battle between the calendar and competing priorities.

DH: When Deborah first shared those stats with me, I was floored. I don’t think either of us suspected such an increase was possible. For me, the biggest setback was mistakenly sending about ~50,000 DOI records to queue and watching them all fail because I grabbed the wrong batch. Ooops. I never made that mistake again, though.

Was any specific type of metadata or any part of the schema particularly easy or particularly difficult to get right in ASM’s production process?

DH: For us, the most difficult piece of metadata revolves around data availability and how we capture linked data resources (outside of data citation resources). Because of our current editorial style (which had been print-centric for years), we did not do a good job of identifying whether there are data associated with published content in a consistent machine-readable way. We did some experiments with one of our journals to capture this outside of our normal Crossref deposit routine, but that was not as accurate or sustainable as we would have liked. But, in that experiment, we learned a few things about how we treat these data throughout our publishing process and we have plans to create a sustainable integrated workflow for this to capture resource/data linkages in our Crossref deposits.

What were your thoughts on last year’s move to open references metadata? Has that impacted on your project in any way?

DP: We were really excited about this; based on the rather limited approach to sorting out impact at the moment, the more metadata we push out into the ecosystem, the more it appears to be used. In my view, that is at the core of what society publishers want to do—ensure that research is accessible and discoverable wherever our users expect to find it.

DH: 100% agree.

How did you keep motivated and on-course throughout?

DP: These kinds of things are never done; for example, we have placeholders for CRediT roles, and getting ready for that work as part of a DTD migration will be the next big thing. The motivation for that is really meeting our commitment to the community, seeing the impact of the author metadata versus article metadata, and seeing what we can learn.

DH: Metadata at its core is one of the pillars of our service as a publisher. To provide the best service, we need to provide the best metadata possible. Just remembering that this can be incremental, allows us to celebrate the large moments and the small. And whether one is partying with a massive 7 layer cake or a smaller cake pop, both are sweet and motivating.

Now that the project is completed, are you seeing the benefits you were hoping to achieve?

DP: This is a hard one to answer as we are using limited measurements at this time. At a high level, I am pleased. While I am eager to leverage event data in the coming year, it would be really helpful to get feedback from the community on how we can improve as well as other ways to evaluate impact.

DH: I want to take up this idea of metadata as a service once more. I don’t mean in terms of discoverability or searchability, either. Let’s take ORCID deposited into Crossref as an example. When done properly (with the proper authentication and validation occurring in the background), we are able to integrate citation data directly to an author’s ORCID profile. We have found that this small service is really appreciated.

Is there any metadata that you’d like to be able to include with your publishing records in the future that isn’t possible currently? What would it be and why?

DP: CRediT roles would be great because it could give greater insight into collaboration within and across disciplines, it could allow for some automation and integration opportunities in the peer review process, and maybe it would visualize aspects of authors’ careers.

DH: I second capturing CRediT roles. What would be really interesting is also creating a standard that quantifies the accessibility conformance/rating of content and passing that into Crossref.

What was the key lesson you learned from this project?

DP: Incremental change can be just as challenging as a massive overhaul, and so it’s important to reevaluate your goals along the way—things always change. There have been cases where we were able to do things that we hadn’t initially thought were feasible.

DH: Always keep the larger goal in mind and remember that any project can birth a new project. Everything does not happen at once.

What’s your next big challenge for 2023?

DP: There is a lot to contend with in the industry right now, and in addition to that we are going through some serious infrastructure changes in our program. With all that madness comes many opportunities. For that reason, when I take a step back from the tactical implications of all that and what we are interested in doing, I think our biggest challenge in 2023 will be identifying what has made an impact and why.

DH: In the short-term, it is making sure that none of our production process changes has negatively affected the past metadata work we spent so much time honing. Once that settles down, it will be determining the best way forward from a publishing perspective in handling true versioning and capturing accurate event data.

Based on your experience, what would be your advice for colleagues from other scholarly publishing organisations?

DP: It can seem daunting, but the small wins can create momentum and do not have to be expensive. Remembering that your publishing program benefits as much as everyone else’s when you deposit more metadata can help refine your short-term and long-term priorities.

DH: Don’t be afraid of making a mess of things. Messes are okay. They aren’t risky. They just reveal the clutter. And clutter gives one reason to clean things up.

THANK YOU for the interview!

About the American Society for Microbiology

The American Society for Microbiology is one of the largest professional societies dedicated to the life sciences and is composed of 30,000 scientists and health practitioners. ASM’s mission is to promote and advance the microbial sciences.

ASM advances the microbial sciences through conferences, publications, certifications and educational opportunities. It enhances laboratory capacity around the globe through training and resources. It provides a network for scientists in academia, industry and clinical settings. Additionally, ASM promotes a deeper understanding of the microbial sciences to diverse audiences. For more information about ASM visit asm.org.

Good, better, best. Never let it rest.

Jennifer Kemp — Tue, 16 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0000

Best practices seem to be having a moment. In the ten years since the Books Advisory Group first created a best practice guide for books, the community beyond Crossref has developed or updated at least 17 best practice resources, as collected here by the Metadata 2020 initiative. (Full disclosure: I co-chair its Best Practices group.)

Books have been one of the fastest growing resource/record types at Crossref for some time, and best practices are just one of the Book Advisory Group’s efforts. Over the past ten years, the members of the books group have updated and added to the guide, and it’s now time for it to get some visibility, so we have added it to our website for easy reference.

These best practices are not documented for the sake of it. They have real value and can help guide internal conversations to evaluate current practices, for example. They can also play a role in making or changing policies, training staff and providing instructions to authors on citation formatting.

Here are a few recent changes I’d like to highlight:

A new section has been added that addresses books hosted on multiple platforms
The section on versions, (including books in multiple formats) has been expanded and clarified
A section on the use of DOIs in citations has been added

It is neither final nor comprehensive, and never will be. Best practices by their very nature must evolve over time—and those with such a broad scope as books will inevitably lack some detail—but that’s all the more reason for the community to stay engaged. Looking ahead to future work from the group, chapter-level metadata is likely to get more attention.

Over the past few years the Books Advisory Group, chaired with aplomb by Emily Ayubi of the American Psychological Association (APA), has spent a lot of time on Crossref initiatives, like Multiple Resolution and DOI display changes but also on broader industry topics like ORCID iDs for book authors, and the Books Citation Index.

As Emily’s term as chair comes to an end this year, we welcome Charles Watkinson of the University of Michigan as chair starting in 2019. The group meets next on 12 December when we will hear from Coko about Editoria and have a discussion about developing our new Metadata Manager Content Registration tool for books, and more.

If you want to share your thoughts on best practices or if you have other topics you’d like us to consider, please get in touch.

Where does publisher metadata go and how is it used?

Laura J Wilkinson — Mon, 17 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0000

Earlier this week, colleagues from Crossref, ScienceOpen, and OPERAS/OpenEdition joined forces to run a webinar on “Where does publisher metadata go and how is it used?”.

Stephanie Dawson explained how ScienceOpen’s freely-accessible, interactive search and discovery platform works by connecting and exposing metadata from Crossref. Her case study showed that articles with additional metadata had much higher average views than those without - depositing richer metadata helps you get the best value from your DOIs!

Pierre Mounier of OPERAS/OpenEdition showed us how a variety of persistent identifiers (PIDs) including DOIs, ORCID iDs, and Funder Registry IDs have been used on OA book platforms to improve citations, author attribution, and tracking of funding. He described a forthcoming annotations project with Hypothes.is, and explained how Crossref metadata is being used in both usage and alternative metrics.

Five ways to register content with Crossref

My overview of Content Registration outlined the five ways to register content with Crossref:

Via the manual web deposit form
Through Crossref’s new Metadata Manager tool (beta)
With OJS’s Crossref plugin - more information here (see OJS downloads Version 3.1.0 and above is the best option for supporting the fullest Crossref metadata)
With a manual XML upload file
Or, using HTTPS to POST XML

I also emphasized the importance of depositing, adding, and updating your metadata, and spoke about:

Basic citation metadata: titles, author names, author affiliations, funding data, publication dates, issue numbers, page numbers, ISSNs, ISBNs…
Non-bibliographic metadata: reference lists, ORCID iDs, license data, clinical trial information, abstracts, relationships…
Crossmark: errata, retractions, updates, and more
How important it is to have accurate, clean, and complete metadata
The importance of registering your back-year records

How to see the metadata you have

Anna Tolwinksa, Crossref’s Member Experience Manager, gave us an overview of the new Participation Reports tool. She explained how Participation Reports allows anyone to see the metadata Crossref members have registered with us, and how you can see for yourself where the gaps in your metadata are, and—importantly—how you can improve your coverage.

What we learnt

There are 10 key metadata elements or checks in Participation Reports that aid in Crossref members’ content discoverability, reproducibility and research integrity:
- References
- ~~Open References~~ [EDIT 6th June 2022 - all references are now open by default].
- ORCID iDs
- Funder Registry IDs
- Funding award numbers
- Text mining URLs
- License URLs
- Similarity Check URLs
Every day, research organisations around the world rely on metadata from Crossref, and use it in a variety of systems. Here are a few examples. Many organisations that enable research depend on Crossref’s metadata; we received over 650 million queries just last month
Crossref members should check Participation Reports to see what percentage of their content includes rich metadata If the percentages are low, Crossref is happy to work with you to help understand and improve your coverage
Richer metadata helps research to be found, cited, linked to, assessed, and reused
To make sure your work can be found!

Catch up with the webinar recording, and slides from Laura, Stephanie, Pierre, and Anna’s presentations, and please contact us if you have any questions.

3,2,1… it’s ‘lift-off’ for Participation Reports

Anna Tolwinska — Wed, 01 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0000

Metadata is at the heart of all our services. With a growing range of members participating in our community—often compiling or depositing metadata on behalf of each other—the need to educate and express obligations and best practice has increased. In addition, we’ve seen more and more researchers and tools making use of our APIs to harvest, analyze and re-purpose the metadata our members register, so we’ve been very aware of the need to be more explicit about what this metadata enables, why, how, and for whom.

This week we take an important step towards this goal with a much-anticipated announcement: Participation reports are in beta release—so come along and take a look!

What does this mean?

Participation Reports gives—for the first time—a clear visualization of the metadata that Crossref has. Search for any member to find out what percentage of their content includes 10 key elements of information, above and beyond the basic bibliographic metadata that all members are obliged to provide. This includes metadata such as ORCID iDs for contributors, funding acknowledgements, reference lists, and abstracts—richer metadata that makes content more discoverable, and much more useful to the scholarly community as a whole, including among members themselves.

You can filter by content such as journal articles, book chapters, datasets, and preprints, and compare current content (past two calendar years and year-to-date) to back file content (older than that). And within the journal articles view, you can drill down to view the metadata completeness for each individual journal. We hear that editorial boards are keen to see that aspect!

We’re delighted that participation reports are now available in beta. That means that while we are confident that the data shown is accurate, there could be the odd glitch as we monitor use.

Thank you to everyone who has helped us to test the reports and provided so much valuable feedback. We plan to expand and improve participation reports to include additional metadata elements, metadata quality checks, and adherence to Crossref best practice such as DOI display. We’re still listening so do get in touch if you have questions or suggestions, or would like a more detailed walk through. There is also a feedback button right in-situ in the tool.

Publishers, help us capture Events for your content

Madeleine Watson — Mon, 02 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0000

The day I received my learner driver permit, I remember being handed three things: a plastic thermosealed reminder that age sixteen was not a good look on me; a yellow L-plate sign as flimsy as my driving ability; and a weighty ‘how to drive’ guide listing all the things that I absolutely must not, under any circumstances, even-if-it-seems-like-a-really-swell-idea-at-the-time, never, ever do.

The margin space dedicated to finger-wagging left little room for championing any driving-do’s. And as each page delivered a fresh new warning, my enthusiasm for hitting the road sunk to levels usually reserved for activities like trigonometry and visits to my orthodontist.

Many years (and an excellent driving record) later, I’m reminded of this again now when thinking about our own Event Data User Guide. Because it contains a chapter with some really important don’ts for our members. Really good, we’d-love-you-to-consider-not-doing-these-things type of advice. But despite our intent to encourage, I feel the ghost of finger-waggers past. So in the spirit of championing enthusiasm over ennui, I thought I’d attempt to contextualise our Event Data Best Practices Guide for Publishers and show you why there’s a lot of good reasons for publishers to be enthusiastic about these rules.

So if you’re a publisher, I encourage you to read on to learn more about how you can help us have the best chance possible of capturing Events for your content.

What’s in it for you? Well, collecting this data helps to give everyone (Crossref, yourself, and others) a better picture of how your content is being used, including for altmetrics.

1. Please let us in

Please do open the door when we come knocking, we promise not to stay long. You can do this by allowing the User Agent CrossrefEventDataBot to visit your site, and whitelisting it if necessary. The bot is how we visit URLs to confirm if they are for an item of content registered with us. The reason why we’re visiting your site could include:

someone tweeted an article landing page
someone discussed it on Reddit
it was linked to from a blog post

The Bot has only one job: to work out the DOI. No information beyond this is stored. Whenever we become aware of a link that we think points to a DOI or an Article Landing Page, we follow it so we can collect the required metadata. Everything in Crossref Event Data is linked via its DOI, so it’s important that we can collect this information.

The bot will identify itself using the standard method. It sets two headers:

Referer: https://eventdata-crossref-org.pluma.sjfc.edu
User-Agent: CrossrefEventDataBot (eventdata@crossref.org)

Once we confirm that a link points to registered content, we then log an Event for the DOI. You should expect our bot to visit no more than once or twice per second, although if there is a period of activity around your articles, you may see higher rates. The bot also takes a sample of DOIs and visits them to work out which domain names belong to our members, so it can maintain a list. This can happen every few weeks. You may see a small number of requests from the bot, but limited to one per second.

If we can’t enter your site to look for metadata though, then we won’t be able to collect Events for your DOIs. So by allowing our bot, you will be helping us to collect Event Data for your registered content.

If you’re worried about traffic on your site, consider sending us your mapping of article landing pages to DOIs. Because Resource URLs aren’t the same as article landing pages, we need more information than the DOI Resource URLs that you already send us.

If you’re running a blog or website (and you’re not a member of Crossref), you may also see our bot visiting, to look for links that comprise Events. Please allow us to visit, so we can record in our Event Data service the fact that your website links to registered content.

2. We ❤️ robots.txt

Robots.txt files are important and we ensure our Event Data Bot respects yours. If we are instructed not to visit a site, we won’t. So if you want us to visit your site in order to check the metadata of your article landing page, please ensure you provide an exception for our Bot, or make sure that you’re not blocking it. Check the restrictions in your file to see if we’re allowed to visit. This is just another way you can help us work for you.

3. Include the DC Identifier

Including good metadata is general best practice for scholarly publishing. When we visit a publisher’s site, we look for metadata embedded in the HTML document (such as DC.Identifier tags that, amongst other things, enable Crossmark to work).

By ensuring you include a Dublin Core identifier meta tag in each of your articles pages, our system can match your landing pages back to DOIs.

Here’s an example:

4. Let us in, even if we don’t bring cookies

We’re like that friend who turns up for dinner without bringing a bottle of wine. And we hope that you’ll be ok with that. Some Publisher sites don’t allow browsers to visit unless cookies are enabled and they block visitors that don’t accept them. If your site does this, we will be unable to collect Events for your DOIs. Allowing your site to be accessed without cookies will help give us the best chance of successfully reading your metadata.

5. We may not speak your language

Sometimes we come across a publisher’s site that won’t render unless JavaScript is enabled. This means that the site won’t show any content to browsers that don’t execute JavaScript. The Event Data Bot does not execute JavaScript when looking for a DOI. This means that if your site requires JavaScript, then we will be unable to collect DOIs for your Events. Consider allowing your site to be accessed without JavaScript. And if this is not possible, then if you ensure you include the tag in the HTML header, then we’ll do our best to collect Events for your registered content.

If you want to pass this on to your friendly system administrator, the best practice is documented in full here: https://www-eventdata-crossref-org.pluma.sjfc.edu/guide/best-practice/publishers-best-practice/. And sorry about all the don’ts you’ll find on that page…. don’t let them curb your enthusiasm for taking Event Data out for a spin!