Sustainability on Crossref

Highlights of a very busy year: our 2025 annual report

Ginny Hendricks — Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0000

As we finish celebrating our 25th anniversary, we can look back on a truly transformational year, defined by the successful delivery of several long-planned, foundational projects—as well as updates to our teams, services, and fees—that position Crossref for success over the next quarter century as essential open scholarly infrastructure. In our update at the end of 2024, we highlighted that we had restructured our leadership team and paused some projects. The changes made in 2024 positioned us for a year of getting things done in 2025. We launched cross-functional programs, modernised our systems, strengthened connections with our growing global community, and streamlined a bunch of technical and business operations while continuing to grow our staff, members, content, relationships, and community connections.

Read on for the highlights of a very busy year, grouped around our four strategic themes.

Strategic theme 1: Contribute to an environment where the community identifies and co-creates solutions for broad benefit

Enhanced tools and services

In October, we released an enhanced Participation Reports dashboard that shows metadata coverage across all 180 million records and provides individual member organisations with actionable gap reports to guide them to improve metadata completeness. The new tool provides more complete coverage of all members and resource types, now including funders and grants, with up to 11 best-practice metadata elements publicly tracked.

We launched support for journal articles in the New Metadata Manager record registration form (initially only for grants), which includes built-in reference and relationships deposit capabilities. In the New Metadata Manager, it’s now also possible to search for previously registered DOIs to edit your metadata records. In the coming years, we are planning to expand the new Metadata Manager to support all the many different content types that you can register with Crossref DOIs.

After a long break between regular updates, we have fixed our process for and just released v.1.63 of the Open Funder registry. With the updated process, we’re now able to resume more frequent updates to the registry (while of course still working towards the transition to ROR for funders).

Throughout 2025, we conducted a website information architecture review to improve the information we provide to our members and the wider community. Based on the recommendations from this review, we will be renewing our website and documentation in 2026.

Deprecations and modernisation

‘Old’ Metadata Manager is to be retired at the end of 2025, with users transitioning to the ‘New’ version or to our other helper tools for registering and updating DOIs. All users have been contacted during 2025 and received training on how to use the New Metadata Manager.

We also announced the deprecation of Co-access, which will end in 2026, bringing an end to the service that allowed duplicate DOIs for book content. Users of co-access have been informed and are in the process of transitioning to multiple resolution.

Together with Turnitin and our members, we are working to transition all subscribers to our Similarity Check service to a new version of iThenticate 2.0. We are happy to report that all platforms with integrations with us transitioned to 2.0 during 2025, and we will continue working with our members to get everyone transitioned during 2026.

Eating our own DOI dogfood

In June this year, we were particularly pleased to finally support the registration of DOIs for our own content, this very blog, through partnering with Rogue Scholar. Blogs are a growing format for scholarly discourse and our own blog is no different as it’s the main way that we share guidelines and best practices, as well as news and stories from the scholarly community. With a Crossref DOI for all blogs going back to 2006, we’re setting ourselves up to ensure better future preservation of the discussion and information about Crossref.

Community connections

We delivered 29 metadata health-check webinars over the course of the year, in French, Indonesian, Spanish, and English, reaching 2,166 participants with practical advice on identifying gaps in journal metadata using Participation Reports.

Crossref Accra took place in March as our first in-person event in a GEM country. We also held similar events in Ecuador and Türkiye with Crossref Quito in September and Crossref Ankara in November. At these three events, we welcomed key figures from each country’s library, government, publishing, and academic communities and we learned so much about the thriving communities there, and also that even more dedicated workshops on the specifics of metadata quality improvements would be appreciated.

Our metadata sprint in Madrid in April brought together community members to tackle specific problems collaboratively, with teams exploring coding, documentation, translation, and research using our open metadata. We’re already planning our next sprint in São Paulo for March 2026, and it will be held in three languages: Portuguese, Spanish, and English.

A strategic goal for Crossref is to grow research funders’ adoption of the Grant Linking System, and we produced the first in a series of interviews with funder members this year to highlight how and why Crossref DOIs are fulfilling goals to assess the reach and return of their research support for FWF (Austria), NWO (Netherlands), FCCN|FCT (Portugal), and Wellcome. This year, we welcomed more funders including Fonds de recherche du Québec (Canada) and Independent Research Fund Denmark as part of their national research platform NORA; we look forward to reporting on their experiences and outcomes next year and others as they work towards Crossref Grant DOI adoption.

We continued working closely with PKP and renewed our partnership to help drive better experience for OJS users registering metadata with Crossref. We also delivered a proportion of the metadata health-checks together to maximise the learning opportunities for our members using OJS; and we joined PKP’s Sprint in Oslo to help make improvements to OJS and OMP.

Crossref staff members serve on almost 50 committees, boards, and other community bodies alongside our own direct work. These include in the areas of research integrity, metascience, metadata and PID standards, open science policy or monitoring, development of new models (such as Diamond OA), editorial production, library and institutional publishing, and citation and other metadata analyses. We also work with other DOI Registration Agencies and support the sustainability of the DOI Foundation with an additional annual subsidy. Many DOI RAs are also Crossref Sponsors so that their members can access our unique reference matching service. While we often might advise, we also learn a huge amount from collaborating with the numerous systems and initiatives that make up the wider research community.

Our involvement with developing the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information led us to become the fiscal host and to participate in most of the working groups on open metadata. Of particular note this year was the Funding Metadata Working Group round table about moving forward the state of funding metadata, which we co-hosted with Barcelona Declaration colleagues, and three funding bodies, NWO (Netherlands), FWF (Austria), and ANR (France) as we heard from publishers and their vendors about challenges and how to overcome them to increase the quantity and quality of available open funding metadata.

All our community engagement activities have been enthusiastically supported and enriched by our indispensable Ambassadors and our group of now 130 Sponsors, organisations that help thousands of Crossref members with local language and technical support and lower cost access to our membership.

Strategic theme 2: A sustainable source of complete, open, and global scholarly metadata and relationships

Schema developments

The grant schema version 0.2.0 was released in January, adding support for ROR identifiers to identify funders and new funding types for in our taxonomy, including APC, BPC, and infrastructure. All of these funding types can be specified in the metadata of our grant-giving members alongside the existing types such as use of facilities or salary/training awards, etc.

Version 5.4 of our publications schema was released in March, marking our first update in many years and a great opportunity to learn how to do this and make the process more efficient. This release introduced typed references to denote the type of object referenced (dataset, blog, software, etc.), preprint status indicators, and version numbering.

Just last week, we also added a dedicated field for grant DOIs to our publications schema. This means it’s now possible to indicate in an article’s metadata which grant(s) funded the research using the persistent identifier. This is an essential step toward better alignment between grant funding and research, enriching the Research Nexus.

We also launched our new Metadata Advisory Group and they have already devised sub-working groups in three focus topic areas:

Multilingual metadata
Subjects and keywords
Relationships

Public data file

We released the 2025 public data file in March, containing metadata for (at the time) over 165 million research outputs from more than 22,000 organisations.

Inaugural Metadata Awards

In May, we launched the first-ever Metadata Awards to recognise members demonstrating excellence in metadata completeness and enrichment. Winners included Noyam Publishers (Ghana), GigaScience Press (Hong Kong), eLife (UK), American Society for Microbiology (USA), Universidad La Salle Arequipa (Peru), and Instituto Geologico y Minero de España (Spain). The awards will be held biennially going forward.

Metadata Matching project

In April, we launched the metadata matching project with the aim of building a more complete picture of the research nexus over time by automatically identifying missing relationships between entities across the scholarly record. The project’s goal is to modernise Crossref’s enrichment workflows by rebuilding them using modern software development and data science practices.

We are in the throws of developing a consolidated matching workflow that will eventually replace all existing production matching processes, with results exposed through the REST API. All new matching strategies will be rigorously evaluated, and the resulting data will be accompanied by clear provenance information. This project covers six matching tasks:

bibliographic reference matching
funder name matching
preprint matching
affiliation matching
grant matching
title matching

In the meantime, while work continues on integrating matching results into the REST API, we’ve been releasing standalone matching datasets for separate download and analysis. These include relationships between preprints and journal articles, relationships involving research organisations, and relationships between grants and research outputs.

Data infrastructure and Research Nexus participation dashboard

Staying on the data science front, we’ve established an internal data environment that combines all relevant data sources (scholarly metadata, logs and usage data, and external datasets) in their raw forms into a single place. This environment is supported by a suite of modern tools and data processing techniques, enabling data science experiments and analytics pipelines to run effectively at scale.

Building on this foundation, we plan to develop a series of dashboards to monitor the state of the scholarly record over time. These dashboards will feature both work-level and member-level statistics (for example, how many works of a given type have been registered, or how many members are registering grant IDs) as well as more detailed insights at the relationship level (for example, how many bibliographic references have been automatically matched, or how many times ROR IDs are included in funder assertions). Some of these statistics are already available in a public spreadsheet for now, pending the dashboard.

Retraction Watch integration

In 2023, Crossref acquired the Retraction Watch database to make it open data. Initially, this was done through sharing simple CSV files, but this year we have set up a pipeline to feed this information into our REST API, which means that Retraction Watch data is now fully available through the REST API, integrated with Crossref member-supplied retraction and correction metadata. This is the first example of Crossref integrating third-party metadata, and we’re learning a lot about how to best incorporate other datasets in future.

Metadata API and services improvements

From 1 December 2025, we revised rate limits for the REST API to ensure system stability whilst maintaining free access to metadata for everyone. Changes were made to the rate limits for our ‘public’ and ‘polite’ APIs, while the limits for our Metadata Plus users stayed the same. We continue to make all metadata openly available to the whole community.

We also improved how information from our content system feeds into the REST API. A tool we call ‘pusher’—because it pushes information from the content system to the REST API—was rebuilt so that we now have a more reliable transfer of information between our two systems.

While adding to technical improvements, we’ve also worked to better understand the use of and streamline the service offering for paid options. We’ll share more about this year’s Metadata Plus consultation soon. And based on feedback, we have already retired the ‘Query Affiliate’ service, where a handful of organisations still paid us a fee to access our XML API, whereas no credentials have been required for some time.

Strategic theme 3: Manage Crossref openly and sustainably, modernising and making transparent all operations so that we are accountable to the communities that govern us

Infrastructure modernisation

One of our biggest projects of 2025—if not the biggest—was the move from our data centre into the cloud (AWS). For 25 years, Crossref had been running a physical data centre in Massachusetts, USA, but as part of modernising our systems, it was high time to move everything into the cloud. The move to AWS took several months, but we successfully completed this move to the cloud in July this year. We’re spending these last weeks of 2025 fully decommissioning our data centre, which means that we are removing all the equipment we had there and locking the door for the last time.

A part of the move to AWS included moving onto an open-source database solution, PostgreSQL. This reduced our reliance on closed, costly licensed solutions, while also aligning with our POSI commitment to open-source. Running our entire system in AWS provides a more stable, modern approach to our infrastructure, but it also is expensive. We expect to spend about 2 million USD on AWS fees next year, with the majority of this cost coming from REST API usage. Some of the improvements described above will help us manage those costs and better observe traffic patterns.

Our new cloud infrastructure is a bittersweet milestone: while we are happy to not have to rely on a physical presence to support a 24/7 global infrastructure, we also say a sad farewell to our much-loved and long-suffering Sys Admin, Tim Pickard, who has been with Crossref since 2002, and has contributed significantly and unwaveringly to keeping our system up and running in the data centre. Tim will be leaving Crossref at the end of the year; we’re grateful to Tim for all his years of dedication, and we will greatly miss his impressive Hawaiian shirt game on our all-staff calls.

After 25 years, it was also time to get serious about modernising our core content system, because even though it serves our community well, an older system with legacy code is a constant risk and frustration. We’ve therefore embarked on a multi-year modernisation project where we are replacing our old code piece by piece. We no longer want to have one big content system (a monolith), but are planning to identify different pieces of functionality and rebuild these as separate services (a modular, flexible, and robust approach). This year, we already managed to reconstruct some smaller pieces (for example, the ‘pusher’ mentioned above), and next year we will tackle larger projects, such as Metadata Matching and Authentication.

We continue to prioritise open, timely communication for planned or unplanned service interruptions and encourage everyone to monitor our status page at status.crossref.org. We’ll further hone our incident response processes in 2026, including openly posting incident reviews, and we’ll also centre system maintenance and documentation clarity in everything we do.

RCFS Projects

The Resourcing Crossref for Future Sustainability projects (RCFS) and the work of our Membership & Fees Committee resulted in deciding not to change some things (such as the basis for annual membership fees), but to change three things about our fees, as reported in July:

A new lower membership fee tier of 200 USD for members with annual revenues/expenses of under 1000 USD - so far, this includes around 3000 members. See below for more info.
A removal of volume discounts to reduce complexity in our billing code; they were little used, and those who did use these were fine with the loss of the discount.
A removal of the rule that only publishers of a title could register peer review reports (including comments and annotations) at the lower 0.25 USD fee for the first review; this lower fee is now available to any member to register any reviews of any other members’ works.

A new late-breaking addition to these fee decisions is the reduction of fees for members registering grants. As of January 1st 2026, there will be no fee for back-year (BY) grant registration, to encourage the faster adoption of older grants, which are more likely to have research outputs to be matched. This will be a two-year pilot to trial how a reduced fee incentivises adoption and boosts metadata connections, and could be extended to other record types as we monitor its success and sustainability. In addition, the 2 USD fee per current-year (CY) grant record is being reduced to 1 USD in line with the next-nearest fee, this is a permanent change for the foreseeable future.

Membership growth, efficiencies, and accessibility

In March, the board voted to update membership terms and bylaws to clarify processes for suspending and revoking membership, and to be more explicit about member practices that preserve the integrity of the scholarly record. A short-term Member Practices Working Group will be meeting in the first half of 2026 to draft these.

Crossref now serves 23,600 members across 164 countries, with continued growth particularly in Asia and Latin America. We’ve continued our ongoing member onboarding activities to support new members joining the community. We see around 230 new members join each month, and have welcomed 2,700 this year so far. We recently reported on how the shape of membership has evolved over our 25 years of operation.

From January 2026, we’re introducing a new lower membership fee tier of 200 USD for organisations with annual revenue or expenses of 1,000 USD or less, making membership more accessible to low-resourced organisations. Already, over 3000 members have been eligible to move into or join under that fee, and the idea is to monitor how this affects Crossref’s financial sustainability and potentially adjust the 200 USD annual fee down again in future years.

From 1 January 2026, the GEM program, which offers fee-free membership and content registration for all members from certain countries, will expand to include 18 additional countries, further reducing financial barriers to participation in the scholarly record, so we expect several hundred further members to join the existing 600 organisations in this category. More information about the GEM program expansion here.

As our membership base continues to grow, the Membership and Finance teams are constantly exploring ways to make shared processes more efficient. A key component in this work has been the efforts to automate several tasks within both teams to help us manage the additional work caused by our growth and allow our teams to focus more on providing the best quality service we can.

Our membership team continues to support our members, sponsors, service providers, metadata users and the wider community by email and through our community forum. The membership team includes staff members who focus on member support, and staff members who focus on technical support. During 2025 so far, we’ve received 36.8k member enquiries through our support system, a 17% increase from last year. This includes 22.6k inquiries related to general membership and 13k technical support enquiries. We’ve received 3.8k membership applications, and welcomed 2.7k new members.

Growth by the numbers

Crossref continues its steady revenue growth in 2025 due to the expansion of our membership base. With the addition of new members and the general growth of Crossref, comes an increase in the transaction-based tasks our Finance team handles.

So far in 2025 we have issued 14,833 invoices, which is a 9% increase since last year. We’ve seen an 11% increase in the number of payments received and applied, and a 12% increase in the amount of credit and debit memos applied over the same time last year. We have also seen a 42% increase in the number of billing-related tickets, totalling 20,723. A large segment of these tickets are related to fee updates associated with the new $200 membership tier.

Not all transactional work in Finance has increased as steadily, with increased revenue of 8% we have also seen a 14% increase in operating expenses. Through the strategic consolidation of vendors and use of financial tools, we have only seen a 1% increase in Accounts Payable invoices processed.

Organisational sustainability

Finance-wise, we’re doing well. We’re projecting to finish this year with revenue of 14,200,000 USD and expect revenue next year of 14,500,000 USD. We’re budgeting 2% growth in overall revenue, accounting for some of the changes to fees that will reduce our earnings on membership dues, but anticipating continued growth of content registration revenue.

Revenue and expenses trends

About 67% of our expenses come from personnel costs, and the other 33% include non-personnel costs like AWS, travel, legal fees, etc. As we continue to build out the team, we have ten new positions planned for the next year (recruitment for many of these is already underway or done). With additional staff roles and AWS expenses, we’re expecting expense growth of 16%. We post our financial statements and Form 990 filings on the financials page on our website.

Revenue per member size (by tier)

As the chart above shows, we still see ’the long tail’ of smaller members in the lowest fee category (275 USD) contributing more revenue than those in the largest category (50,000 USD) at 5.8 million USD versus 5 million USD.

Another aspect of sustainability is our impact on the world around us. And this year we were able to publish a second report on Crossref’s carbon footprint, having monitored and controlled for several carbon-heavy activities, primarily staff travel. Our reported emissions went up 40% from 2023 to 2024, due to more travel given our growth in staff and members, better recording our emissions (for example, with hotel stays), and including travel that we support for our partners, ambassadors and board members. In terms of travel spending, we are still well below 2019 when we were smaller, demonstrating that we are following through on not going back to the pre-pandemic norm.

We were one of the first open infrastructure organisations to adopt the POSI Principles and now have a few years’ experience in trying to meet them. Together with other adopters, we proposed updates and additions to the principles, based on real-world practice, and gathered a lot of community comment, resulting in the group publishing POSI v2 in October. We conduct a self-assessment every other year and we’ll be involving all our staff in the next self-assessment, due later in 2026.

Open governance through board election and annual meeting

We continued our commitment to being member-led and community-driven. This year’s anniversary Annual Meeting in October brought together members to discuss strategy, metadata developments, and hear the results of their voting in our board election. It comprised two half-days of online conferencing and several in-person satellite meetings spread across five continents, gathering close to 500 members of our community. It was a platform to reflect together on the past quarter of the century of building community infrastructure and connections underpinning the progress of scholarship, and to share plans for the future.

Each member has one vote, and together they elected the following organisations to serve a three-year term alongside the rest of the board:

Tier 1 candidates (electing one seat):

Rebecca Wambua, Distance, Open and e-Learning Practitioners’ Association of Kenya

Tier 2 candidates (electing four seats):

Damian Bird, CABI
Rose L’Huillier, Elsevier*
Anjalie Nawaratne, Springer Nature*
Nick Lindsay, The MIT Press*

*returning board member

Congratulations to the remaining and incoming board members as we start their new term in January 2026. Have a look at all the outputs from our Annual Meeting.

Strategic theme 4: Foster a strong team—because reliable infrastructure needs committed people who contribute to and realise the vision, and thrive doing it

Team structure

We reorganised the team heading into 2025 because we had ambitious goals that required a more structured, collaborative approach. We reorganised the work around three strategic, mission-driven areas of focus described above. This was our first full year with the cross-functional program groups in place, and the activities reported here make it evident that our team members, both existing and new, are firing on all cylinders.

New staff and new roles

We welcomed eight new team members in 2025. In February, we welcomed our new Director of Programs & Services, Helena Cousijn, and a new member of the Technical Support team, Arley Soto. In March, we welcomed our new Community Manager for funders, Rocío Gaudioso Pedraza. In April, we launched our new Data Science team by welcoming Jason Portenoy and Alex Bédard-Vallée. In November, we welcomed our new DevOps Engineer, Thelma Laryea, and our new Program Technical Lead for the OSO program, Bharath Govindarajan. In December, we welcomed another member of the Technical Support team, Natali Giorgobiani.

We also had team members step up into new roles. Dominika Tkaczyk completed the new leadership team by taking on the Director of Technology role, Paul Davis has started his new role as Product Manager, and Michelle Cancel has taken on the Head of Human Resources role. And there’s more to come! As next year begins, two team members will step into Program Technical Lead roles: Carlos del Ojo Elias for the CRN program and Patrick Vale for the CCT program. Together with the Program Technical Lead for the OSO program and the Head of Infrastructure Services, these roles will complete the new structure of the technology team. This structure is more closely aligned with how our work is organised and will enable stronger coordination both within and across cross-functional programs.

Supporting a thriving global culture

As our team grows in different aspects within our new org structure to meet the needs of the community, we remain committed to supporting a thriving culture through training, conducting regular temperature checks, and organising our annual staff retreat. This year, we continued our work on psychological safety and introduced workshops on giving and receiving feedback and on consensus building. We were able to put some of this training into practice at our in-person all-staff event in Split, Croatia, where we all came together to build our roadmap.

We are ending the year with 51 staff in 14 countries and look forward to diversifying and evolving even further as a team in 2026—we’re currently hiring in UX, Communications, and Membership—and keep an eye on our jobs page for forthcoming opportunities in Software, DevOps, Metadata, and Operations!

Thank you to our community of members, partners, board, ambassadors, sponsors, metadata users, service providers, integrators—and of course our team—for making 2025 such a productive year. Together, we’re building a richer, more connected research ecosystem for the benefit of society. We can’t wait to continue the work together in 2026.

Changing fees to increase equity and reduce complexity

Amanda Bartell — Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0000

The Crossref Board recently approved three recommendations for changes to our fees: introduction of a new lowest membership fee tier, removal of volume discounts for record registration, and normalisation of registration fees for peer reviews. The changes will be applied from January 2026.

This is the first outcome of the Resourcing Crossref for Future Sustainability (RCFS) program, launched in 2023, as a comprehensive effort to review all aspects of Crossref revenue and how we’re adapting to growth and the diversification of our membership. The program aims to make fees more equitable, simplify our complex fee schedule, and rebalance revenue sources.

Following two rounds of member surveys, feedback gathered from the community in polls, open discussions, and emails, the Membership and Fees (M&F) Committee (made up of 30+ representatives from members, service providers, sponsors, and community partners) discussed evidence and made the first round of recommendations to the Board this month. We’re very thankful for their time spent reviewing data and sharing their experiences to get to this point.

GOAL 1: More equitable fees

Our membership has changed over the years - members now tend to be less well-resourced, more likely to be based in Asia or Latin America, and more likely to be much smaller operations, some of which may not even be organisations but volunteer groups. We are seeing more universities join as members, and fewer members now consider themselves publishers first and foremost. With our mission of creating a complete global research nexus, this growing diversity is excellent news.

While new member growth is steady (2.3k members per year), over half join via a Sponsor (that makes membership more accessible both financially and technically), and close to 300 members have their membership revoked due to unpaid invoices each year, indicating that the current fee may be a barrier to participation for some.

Area of focus: Define a new basis for sizing and tiering members for their capacity to pay

Our annual membership fees are currently tiered according to the publishing revenue or expenses (whichever is higher) of each member. This enables each member to contribute to the community infrastructure according to their capacity to pay.

One of the first areas under consideration throughout 2024 was an option to change the basis of our membership fees from the publishing revenue (or expenses) of each organization to their overall organisational revenue (or expenses) instead.

Through surveys, discussions with the M&F committee, and at the Crossref 2024 Annual Meeting, we received strong feedback, particularly from those based at institutions and/or following a diamond open-access model, that making this change would put Crossref beyond their reach.

It became clear therefore that we should NOT change the basis for sizing and tiering members.

Instead, we will maintain the current basis for sizing and tiering members by considering their publishing revenue or expenses, whichever is higher. For non-publisher members, we advise taking ‘publishing’ to mean ‘producing’, so taking their cost of producing the works being registered with us, whether that is data, software, imagery, physical objects, etc.

Area of focus: Evaluate the USD 275 annual membership fee tier and propose a more equitable pricing structure, which might entail breaking this down into two or more different tiers.

We also looked into making our fees more equitable. It’s been long recognised that our lowest fee tier (an annual fee payment of USD 275 for all members with publishing revenue up to USD 1 million) represents a huge diversity of organisations operating within a range of financial contexts - over 95% of our non-sponsored members are in this category, and this is the category almost all new members join in. Throughout the project, we ran various surveys with our members to learn more about the makeup and factors affecting the capacity to pay for this group.

From January 2026, we will create a new annual membership tier for members whose publishing revenue/expenses (whichever is higher) is equal to or lower than USD 1,000 per year.

Based on survey data, we expect 30-60% of our current members in the current USD 275 tier to move to this new category. This new membership fee tier will be set at USD 200 in 2026, which is 27% lower than the current 275 membership fee. We will monitor the uptake in this category, with a view to identify necessary adjustments in future years. As a result, we expect a decrease in revenue of between USD 174k (if 30% of current lowest tier members move into the new tier) and USD 348k (if 60% of those members move into the new tier).

Our Membership team will reach out to help qualifying members change to the new tier well before January 2026. If your publishing revenue or expenses are equal to or lower than USD 1,000 per year, look out for our email in the next couple of weeks to help you transition to the lower USD 200 tier.

GOAL 2: Simplify complex fees

Area of focus: Address and adjust volume discounts for Content Registration

We currently offer volume discounts for several of our record types. These are calculated at the end of each quarter.

In order to reduce the complexity of our pricing, we will eliminate all volume discounts.

They are underused, accessible only to a small percentage of members, and the financial impact of making the change is small. These discounts contribute to complexity in our billing process and block our ability to offer members a running total or provide leaving members with a timely final invoice.

Having consulted with affected organisations, we’re reassured that the change will not adversely affect their ability to register their works with us. We appreciate their understanding of the overall positive impact of this change for Crossref and their support for our sustainability.

Area of focus: Reduce complexity in peer review fees

Finally, prompted by feedback from our members, we looked into normalising fees for peer review registration. We currently have two sets of fees for peer reviews based on whether the review is registered by the owner of the item being reviewed. There is a charge for the first review for a specific article, and a different charge for subsequent reviews for the same article by the same member. This charge for the subsequent reviews also varies depending on who registered the review. Very few members register peer reviews for records that they do not own, so having a separate, higher set of fees just adds complexity to the fee schedule with no financial or strategic benefit.

Starting from January 2026, we will consolidate all peer review fees, regardless of who registers it, to USD 0.25 for the first review for an article, and free registration for any subsequent reviews of that same record by the same member.

Area of focus: Address and adjust back-year discounts for record registration

Another recommendation, related to the removal of back-year discounts for select record types (conference proceedings, technical reports and working papers, theses and dissertations, and posted content/preprints) due to under use, hasn’t been approved yet. Based on feedback from the board, more research will be conducted on trends related to specific record types, such as theses and dissertations, so we can better understand potential unintended consequences of such changes.

We’re looking to retain back-year discounts for record types where they continue to be well-used, including those for journal articles and book titles. We’re also looking to retain back-year discounts for grants, as these are at an early stage of adoption, and new funders coming on board naturally start with a backlog of grants to register in the Grant Linking System.

What happens next?

The Resourcing Crossref for Future Sustainability (RCFS) initiative is very broad, and in the coming months and years you can expect progress with other aspects of our fees and resourcing. There is more work to come, including the rebalancing of revenue from the use of our metadata, the future of fees for our funder members, and further changes to record registration fees.

We’re glad to see the first changes progressing to implementation, and would like to thank our Membership and Fees Committee and all members who took part in the consultations so far for your continued support.

POSI 2.0 feedback

Ed Pentz — Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0000

As a provider of foundational open scholarly infrastructure, Crossref is an adopter of the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI). In December 2024 we posted our updated POSI self-assessment. POSI provides an invaluable framework for transparency, accountability, susatinability and community alignment. There are 21 other POSI adopters.

Together, we are now undertaking a public consultation on proposed revisions for a version 2.0 release of the principles, which would update the current version 1.1 of the principles, released in November 2023.

This is a crucial step in ensuring that POSI evolves to meet the needs of the community. Whether you are part of an organisation that has adopted POSI, is considering adoption, interacts with POSI-aligned groups, or you have a personal interest in open scholarly infrastructure, your perspective is invaluable.

Some additional context about POSI

POSI is not an organisation; POSI adopters are an informal group of those that have conducted self-assessments.
The POSI principles are not rules or a checklist; organisations or groups can adopt or interpret them to fit many different circumstances.
Our goal is for POSI self-assessments to be made publicly available and for interested communities to assess and monitor updates and progress.

How to Participate

If your organisation has adopted POSI, is considering adoption, interacts with POSI-aligned groups, or you have a personal interest in open scholarly infrastructure, your perspective is invaluable.

Review the Proposed POSI 2.0 Revisions.
Share your thoughts via our short survey.

Deadline: March 5, 2025

Together, we can shape the future of open scholarly infrastructure. Join the conversation and make your voice heard!

2024 POSI audit

Lucy Ofiesh — Sat, 07 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Background

The Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI) provides a set of guidelines for operating open infrastructure in service to the scholarly community. It sets out 16 points to ensure that the infrastructure on which the scholarly and research communities rely is openly governed, sustainable, and replicable. Each POSI adopter regularly reviews progress, conducts periodic audits, and self-reports how they’re working towards each of the principles.

In 2020, Crossref’s board voted to adopt the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure, and we completed our first self-audit. We published our next review in 2022.

The POSI adopters have continued to review the principles, reflecting on the effects of adopting them and providing a revision to the principles in late 2023. We use the revised principles for this latest review.

Key

We use a traffic light system to indicate where we believe we stand against each of the 16 principles. Now with up/down arrows to show any significant movement, and an ‘i’ where there is something of note with narrative.

red indicates we are not fulfilling the principle.
yellow indicates we are making progress towards meeting the principle.
green indicates we are fulfilling the principle.
or means this is a new change, where we’ve moved ‘up’ the traffic lights, in comparison to the previous audit. We would use the same if ‘down’ ever happens too.
or means that something has changed of note and in comparison to the previous audit.

GOVERNANCE

Coverage across the scholarly enterprise
Stakeholder governed
Non-discriminatory participation or membership
Transparent governance
Cannot lobby
Living will
Formal incentives to fulfil mission & wind-down

What’s changed with governance

Stakeholder governed

We’ve been yellow and we’re still yellow, but it has been improving. In the past, we’ve reported that we are working towards this but we’re not there yet because we didn’t have representation on the board from certain types of members, specifically research funders and research institutions. In the incoming 2025 board class, we have both. Six out of our 16 board seats are held by universities, university presses, or libraries. We also look forward to adding a new research funder, the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), to the board in January.

None of this, though, is hardcoded into the structure of the board. We extend an open call for board interest; any active member can apply for consideration. The Nominating Committee prepares a slate with a diverse range of candidates and organisations, and it is then up to the membership to elect board members.

With only 16 board seats and >21,000 members in 160 countries, being fully stakeholder-governed is challenging. Further, there are important contributors to the community that we all rely on who are not eligible for board seats because they are not members, as defined in our by-laws, such as sponsors, service providers, and metadata users.

We don’t consider this principle fulfilled, and that’s a good thing to keep note of; we must keep aspiring to have a broader, more comprehensive representation of our evolving community. The board continues to discuss stakeholder representation.

SUSTAINABILITY

Time-limited funds are used only for time-limited activities
Goal to generate surplus
Goal to create financial reserves
Mission-consistent revenue generation
Revenue based on services, not data

What’s changed with sustainability

Goal to create financial reserves

This was yellow and is now green. In 2023, we met our goal of maintaining a contingency fund of 12 months of operating costs. We also topped up this fund in 2024 to keep pace with our growing operating expenses. The revisions for POSI 1.1 actually removed the specificity of a 12-month timeline, allowing each adopting organisation to set its own goal; in Crossref’s case, 12 months remains appropriate.

INSURANCE

Open source
Open data (within constraints of privacy laws)
Available data (within constraints of privacy laws)
Patent non-assertion

What’s changed with insurance

Open source

This was yellow and still is, but we’re making improvements. In September of this year we migrated our database off of a closed-source solution and onto PostgreSQL. This has improved the performance of the system and is an important step towards paying down technical debt and moving the system fully into the cloud.

Patent non-assertion

This was yellow and is now green. We confirm that we do not hold any patents, and we have a published policy on it that is available for inspection and reuse by anyone in the community.

In summary

These are the main changes of note for our 2024 POSI update. The summary is that we’ve maintained all our greens, and of the four principles that were yellow last time, two have moved to green (financial reserves; patent non-assertion) and two have remained yellow but seen some progress of note (stakeholder governed; open source).

Please let us have any comments or questions; by commenting here it will add a public record of the discussion on our community forum. Here is an image to share, if needed.

We continue to learn from the POSI adopters group—now numbering 23 organisations—and the group will soon share a draft of POSI v2 for community comment. We look forward to the ongoing discussions with this group, and others, to keep improving and holding ourselves to account.

Update on the Resourcing Crossref for Future Sustainability research

Kornelia Korzec — Mon, 28 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0000

We’re in year two of the Resourcing Crossref for Future Sustainability (RCFS) research. This report provides an update on progress to date, specifically on research we’ve conducted to better understand the impact of our fees and possible changes.

Crossref is in a good financial position with our current fees, which haven’t increased in 20 years. This project is seeking to future-proof our fees by:

Making fees more equitable
Simplifying our complex fee schedule
Rebalancing revenue sources

In order to review all aspects of our fees, we’ve planned five projects to look into specific aspects of our current fees that may need to change to achieve the goals above. This is an update on the research and discussions that have been underway with our Membership & Fees Committee and our Board, and what we’ve learned so far in each of these areas.

Goal 1: More equitable fees.

To ensure our fees going into the future are more equitable, we’re carrying out two parallel projects: evaluation of the lowest membership tier, and the review of the basis for deciding the membership tiers and distribution of membership across them.

Project 1: Evaluate the lowest membership tier and propose a more equitable pricing structure.

All Crossref members pay an annual membership fee. These fees are tiered, and different members pay a different fee depending on the annual publishing revenue that their organisation receives (or publishing expenses if they don’t receive any publishing revenue).

We entered into this project recognising that we have too many membership tiers and the definition we use to size members is not consistent and can be confusing (e.g. different basis for funders than other organisations, and both are different still from subscribers to our Metadata Plus service). The idea of the membership tiers was to use publishing revenue as a proxy for “ability to pay”. We really want to develop proposals for a more equitable pricing structure. However we don’t know enough about our members’ capacity to pay to be able to model an alternative approach.

Our current lowest fee tier is $275 (USD) for any organisation with annual publishing revenue (or publishing expenses where the organisation doesn’t receive publishing revenue) of $0 to $1 million, and this is the tier where we focus our attention in our first project of the RCFS program. The difference between an organisation with revenue or expenses of USD 0, and an organisation with revenue or expenses of USD 1 million, is huge. Hardly any new members have joined in any other tier in the past several years. Of the 21,000 active members, more than 20,000 fall into the USD 275 tier - either directly (as an independent member) or indirectly (through a sponsor, where their fees would be lower). A fee structure that would fit better with the realities of our community might entail breaking our current $275 fee tier down into two or more more granular tiers.

At the moment, the majority of Crossref’s revenues come from the bottom membership tiers; 65% of membership revenues come from organisations in the USD 275 tier. We also know that many of those members (86%) are paying more in membership dues than in content registration, whereas other members have the inverse relationship between annual dues and content registration. Overall, the members in the USD 275 tier contributed 34% of Crossref’s revenue last year, and the members in the >USD 50 million tier – contributed 29%.

Members’ survey

Between April and May this year, we surveyed all independent members in the USD 275 tier. We asked questions about their operating size, how they’re funded, and how Crossref’s fees affect them. At the time of the survey, there were 8,027 members in this category. We received 1,054 responses; with a 13% response rate and broad representation globally, we are confident in the sample size. One-third of respondents said they were part of a larger organisation (such as a department or a library in a research institution).

Chart 1: Organisation revenue or funding The majority of respondents in this category (65%) have annual revenue or expense of less than USD 100,000; with 48% operating with less than USD 10,000.

Chart 2: Sources of funding When asked about the sources of funding (as an indicator of how stable these organisations might be and how readily accessible their funding is) the most frequent answer was public or government funding, and then article processing charges. If organisations relied on two sources of funding, the most common combination was public funding and article processing charges, and it was relatively rare for these organisations to have multiple sources of funding.

Chart 3: What percentage of expenses do you spend on Crossref fees?

The majority (61%) of respondents spend less than 5% of their expenses on Crossref fees. However, we have also learnt that for some volunteer-run publications, Crossref fees might be some of the only expenses they incur. Interestingly, the percentage of expenses spent on Crossref is fairly consistently spread across the continents.

Project 2: Review the basis and distribution of membership tiers

This project examines options for how we define the capacity to pay, how members are distributed across tiers, and the right levels of member fees.

There are currently a range of prices for our annual fees, based on an organisation’s ability to pay. We have used the metric of annual publishing expense or revenue as an indicator of that ability, but in some cases it doesn’t apply. As per our fee principles, we have not differentiated between organisation types. Nonprofit and commercial entities pay the same price (caveat: research funders still have a separate fee schedule, but that was intended to be temporary).

We conducted a review of other annual fee models to benchmark our approach against six like-minded organisations working in the context of scholarly communications and infrastructure. We looked at whether these organisations based their fees on one more more of the following:

Volume: e.g., research output, # of journals
Budget: e.g., total annual revenue or expenses
Relevant budget: e.g. publishing revenue
Organisation type: e.g. variance in fee based on publisher, institution, or funder
Country-level economic data: e.g., discounting based on World Bank classification, discounting based on purchasing power calculation.

Chart 4: Annual fee schedules comparisons between Crossref and CORE, DOAJ, Dryad, OA Switch-board, OpenCitations and ORCID.

There are three consistent themes among our peers: the total annual revenue and volume levels are the most common basis for membership fees among other organisations, and almost all offer discounted fees to accommodate country-based economic circumstances, utilising World Bank’s data (this is currently achieved at Crossref via the GEM program, which we have full intention of incorporating into our future fees whatever other decisions we might take). Only one other organisation uses publishing revenue or expenses as a basis for annual fees, while the potentially more transparent and less ambiguous data point of the total revenue factors in three other annual fee models.

For subscribers to our Metadata Plus service, the fee tier is selected based on whichever is the higher between their total annual revenue (including earned and fundraised, e.g. grants) or annual operating expenses (including staff and non-staff, e.g. occupancy, equipment, licences etc.). At present, we have limited understanding of the budgets of our members and how this may compare to their publishing revenues or expenses. We are looking to learn more about this as part of our annual membership data checking process, where we email all our members to ask them to confirm contact details for their organisation and the staff involved in managing their Crossref account. This year, we’re also asking all members about their organisation’s annual operating budget (or planned annual expenses) to help inform our discussions. In our case, the volume of outputs (in this case the number of items and associated metadata registered with Crossref) is recognised by the registration fees mechanism.

Consulting with organisations outside Crossref membership

To help us inform how our fees can be more equitable, it’s important to invite voices of organisations that may currently be unable to join us - due to fees or technical barriers. We hope that learning more about their circumstances will help us make sure that we improve accessibility of Crossref membership to all organisations that publish scholarly and professional works. We commissioned Accucoms to carry out a consultation on our behalf.

So far, from a handful of interviews with publishers from Nigeria, DRC, Canada and USA, we’ve learnt that while virtually all offer open access to their publications, the majority has no publishing income, and where the income is derived via APCs it’s modest and only applicable in rare circumstances. Through institutional funding and/or grants, these organisations have modest operational budgets, yet our respondents lacked clarity over the particulars. In terms of participation in professional networks and international publishing organisations, only one of the organisations we interviewed participates in DOAJ, and another is a member of OASPA, in both cases their participation is free. Among the interviewees, two organisations were interested in Crossref membership in the past but encountered technical barriers to joining.

With only five interviews to date, the consultation is still open and we’re keen to hear from more organisations that are not Crossref members but have considered our membership at some point.

Goal 2: Simplify complex fees

Projects 3 & 4: Review volume and back-year discounts for Content Registration

Along with our membership fees, our members also pay usage-based registration fees for records (scholarly works and grants) they register with us. Different content types render different costs for our members, and the fees are subject to discounts related to the age of publication and volume of registrations. Records for items older than two years have a lower fee associated with them, to help incentivise registration of such ‘back-year’ materials with great gains for the Research Nexus. There are also discounts related to the volume of transactions – which again depend on the content types.

These discounts are intended to encourage certain behaviours, specifically encouraging members to register older records in large quantities to better complete the scholarly record. Not all content types have back-year or volume discounts, and the rate of discount varies. This creates quite a complex system of fees. To the extent that the discount is successful in encouraging this behaviour, we want to preserve it, but in many cases these discounts see little to no activity.

Following the discussions of the Membership and Fees Committee, chaired by Vincas Grigas, Vilnius University, we are preparing to consult with the small number of members who currently receive volume discounts to discuss what the impact would be if we removed them.

We plan to identify and preserve the well-used back-year discounts, which encourage registration of old content, such as books, journal articles, grants. However, there are types of discounts that are hardly ever used and we are considering removing these to simplify the fees. This work will focus on the technical implications of removing some of the underused back-year discounts from the billing code and consulting with members to understand any impact .

Goal 3: Rebalance revenue sources

Project 5: Reflect increase in metadata usage and perceived shift of value toward metadata distribution

All Crossref metadata is made freely and openly available to everyone. However, some organisations may be looking for a service level agreement in delivery of the metadata, plus more regular snapshots and priority service/rate limits. For those organisations, we have an optional Metadata Plus service.

The final project is looking at the fees for this service. We are interested in making sure that Crossref metadata is available and used by the community where it can contribute to their objectives – related to discovery, analysis, integrity, and more. The optional paid service we offer aims to support the external tools that facilitate business and scholarly processes for the community. We are heartened to see that the appetite for the use of metadata seems to be growing, and the value of open research information is increasingly and widely recognised. We want to ensure that the users of metadata contribute proportionally to the maintenance of the records created and curated by our members.

Conclusion

At this point, most projects generate a lot of questions and the work is underway to deliver answers related to capacity to pay, discounts as well as available metadata usage, and barriers faced by organisations in our community.

What we have found so far is that two of our goals – simplification and equity – are often at odds with each other, and this is especially true with the $275 tier.

We welcome comments, suggestions and questions.

Seeking consultancy: understanding joining obstacles for non-member journals

Ginny Hendricks — Wed, 01 May 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Crossref is undertaking a large program, dubbed 'RCFS' (Resourcing Crossref for Future Sustainability) that will initially tackle five specific issues with our fees. We haven’t increased any of our fees in nearly two decades, and while we’re still okay financially and do not have a revenue growth goal, we do have inclusion and simplification goals. This report from Research Consulting helped to narrow down the five priority projects for 2024-2025 around these three core goals:

Scope of the RCFS Program 2024-2025

GOAL: MORE EQUITABLE FEES

Project 1: Evaluate the USD $275 annual membership fee tier and propose a more equitable pricing structure, which might entail breaking this down into two or more different tiers.
Project 2: Define a new basis for sizing and tiering members for their capacity to pay

GOAL: SIMPLIFY COMPLEX FEES

Project 3: Address and adjust volume discounts for Content Registration
Project 4: Address and adjust back-year discounts for Content Registration

GOAL: REBALANCE REVENUE SOURCES

Project 5: Reflect the increasing value of Crossref as a metadata source, likely increasing Metadata Plus fees

Work to date

As part of the RCFS program, we are working closely with our Membership & Fees Committee to discuss insights, gather feedback, and make recommendations to the Board. As a first step, we have surveyed and received responses from around 1000 of the current 8000 Crossref members in our lowest membership fee tier (USD $275). We are now starting to distill that data and will discuss it on our community call on May 8th and subsequently with the M&F Committee to inform recommendations for fee changes that may going into effect in 2025 or 2026.

Request For Information (RFI) about community consultation project

While we have useful data from existing Crossref members, we know that there are many thousands of journals that are not (yet) members, and we need to understand this group better, in particular, to document and address the financial obstacles as well as the technical or social challenges.

We are looking for community facilitation expertise, with multiple language skills, to conduct a series of focus groups with non-member journals, with a summary and insights report (in English) provided by the end of June 2024.

All the data and documentation will be available publicly on the dedicated RCFS Program website

As well as designing, conducting, and summarising the results of some focus groups (participants for which will be gathered via our own contacts and those of partners such as DOAJ, EIFL, and the Free Journal Network) we would like the consultant to review work such as the DIAMAS institutional publishing report, and identify data relevant to Crossref’s fee model.

If you would like to respond, please provide the following information and send it to Kora Korzec at feedback@crossref.org by 15th May:

Your consultancy organisation and your role within it
Examples of similar market research undertaken
Languages spoken within your team
Confirmation that the timeline is workable
Approximate fee, likely range, or structure/basis for your fee

Equally, if you represent a journal or group of journals, such as Diamond Open Access journals, and are not yet using Crossref, please get in touch and we can include your group in the research.

Thank you!

POSI fan tutte

Geoffrey Bilder — Tue, 08 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0000

Just over a year ago, Crossref announced that our board had adopted the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI).

It was a well-timed announcement, as 2021 yet again showed just how dangerous it is for us to assume that the infrastructure systems we depend on for scholarly research will not disappear altogether or adopt a radically different focus. We adopted POSI to ensure that Crossref would not meet the same fate.

POSI proposes three areas that an Open Infrastructure organisation can address to garner the trust of the broader scholarly community: accountability (governance), funding (sustainability), and protection of community interests (insurance). POSI also proposes a set of concrete commitments that an organisation can make to build community trust in each area. There are 16 such commitments.

In our announcement of Crossref’s adoption of POSI, we made two critical points:

One doesn’t have to meet all the commitments of POSI already to adopt it. For one thing, this would make it impossible for new organisations to adopt POSI. So instead, we should view the adoption of the POSI principles as a “statement of intent” against which stakeholders can measure an organisation’s progress.
That, conversely, meeting all of the POSI principles doesn’t mean an organisation can relax. It is always possible for an organisation to regress on a particular commitment. For example, an emergency expenditure might mean that the organisation no longer maintains a 12-month contingency fund and therefore has to replenish it.

With these two points made, we ended our announcement with a candid self-audit against the principles. We concluded that Crossref was already entirely or partially meeting the requirements of 15 of the 16 POSI commitments. And adopting the 16th commitment would just formalize a direction Crossref had already been heading toward for several years. We also said that we would update our self-audit regularly.

But before we continue with the Crossref POSI audit update, we should talk about the immediate aftermath of our adopting the principles.

Since Crossref adopted POSI, nine other organisations have made the same commitment and conducted similar self-audits. We affectionately call them the “POSI Posse”.

Dryad
ROR
JOSS
OurResearch
OpenCitations
DataCite
OA Switchboard
Sciety
Europe PMC

These organisations represent a critical part of the hidden infrastructure that scholarly research depends on every day. By committing to POSI, they are helping ensure their accountability to the research community. They are also emphasizing that stakeholders must participate in the governance and stewardship of organisations running that infrastructure.

But perhaps most importantly- these ten organisations that have publicly committed to adopting POSI will not suddenly disappear or change priorities without giving the community time to react and, if need be, intervene.

There are also more quotidian advantages to these organisations adopting POSI. Adopting the principles makes it easier for the respective organisations to collaborate to make research infrastructure more effective and efficient. The foundation of effective collaboration is trust. And, so by agreeing that we share basic principles of operation, we virtually eliminate a whole slew of negotiations that typically need to occur before two organisations trust each other enough to collaborate closely on projects.

One of Crossref’s strategic priorities is to “collaborate and partner” with other organisations on improving our open scholarly infrastructure. And the easiest way to collaborate with us is to adhere to the same principles. So we look forward to more scholarly infrastructure organisations adopting POSI in 2022 so that, together, we can make research infrastructure work better.

Establishing this level of trust has already paid significant dividends with the Research Organization Registry (ROR) - a relatively new infrastructure project founded jointly by DataCite, CDL, and Crossref.

Having nine organisations adopt POSI so soon after our announcement was a wonderful feeling. It is hard for us to convey how happy we are about this without gushing.

Here is a picture of me gushing.

But now we have some outstanding business to update our self-audit.

This post is the first of our regular updates on our progress (or regress) on meeting the POSI principles.

TL;DR

We didn’t regress on any commitment. We’ve improved a little bit where we were not meeting the POSI principles, but we have still not met all our POSI commitments.

Area	Commitment	2020	2021
Governance	Coverage across the research enterprise
	Non-discriminatory membership
	Transparent operations
	Cannot lobby
	Living will
	Formal incentives to fulfill mission & wind-down
	Stakeholder-governed
Sustainability	Time-limited funds are used only for time-limited activities
	Goal to generate surplus
	Goal to create a contingency fund to support operations for 12 months
	Mission-consistent revenue generation
	Revenue based on services, not data
Insurance	Available data (within constraints of privacy laws)
	Patent non-assertion
	Open source
	Open data (within constraints of privacy laws)

Details

Stakeholder governance moves from red to yellow

Our only red mark in our POSI self-audit was against the principle of stakeholder governance. Our board did not yet reflect our members’ diversity or the broader stakeholder community. In particular, as funders have become more central to shaping the scholarly communications landscape, it seemed important that Crossref have funder representation in our governance.

So this year, the Crossref nominations committee was charged with proposing a board slate that addressed some of our representational gaps. They did this, and as a direct result, two of the members elected to next year’s board were a funder (Melanoma Research Alliance) and a significant preprint platform (Center for Open Science).

These new additions to our board mark a significant improvement in stakeholder governance, but we can do more. Researchers and research institutions are also substantial Crossref stakeholders. We need to have a better representation of their concerns.

Also, there are still members of the scholarly communications community who depend on Crossref but cannot afford to join it because our fees are too high for them. Since membership is a prerequisite to participation in Crossref governance, we are also placing emphasis on figuring out how to further extend Crossref membership to those who still cannot afford it, through programs like Sponsorship, country-level journal gap analyses work, and a forthcoming fee review. So this is a source of stakeholder governance inequity that may be best handled by our membership & fees committee rather than our nominations committee.

In short, we’ve made progress on our stakeholder governance commitment. Still, we need to do more- so we are updating our adherence to the POSI stakeholder governance principle from red to yellow.

Another place where we have improved things is under the banner of “transparency.” But here, we see one of the shortcomings of the ‘traffic light” representation used in the self-audit. The degree that one meets a commitment falls along a gradient. And this gradient cannot be represented accurately in the ternary classification of red/yellow/green. So while last year we marked ourselves as “green” under the commitment to transparency, over the past year we have become greener. We did this by creating sections on our website that provide further detail on our governance and finances- even including the 990 forms that are required by US tax authorities for non-profits when they submit their taxes. So what do we do here? Make it neon-green? Make it blink?

Sustainability moves from yellow to chartreuse stays yellow

In our first self-audit, we had several yellow marks- places where we were doing OK, but where we needed to make improvements.

The first yellow mark involved one of the principles of “sustainability,” which stipulates that an organisation should have a goal to create a contingency fund to support operations for 12 months. At the time, we had a contingency fund of 9 months. The board instructed the finance committee to develop a plan for meeting the new 12-month goal. To do this, the board decided to create three funds. The first is fairly flexible and holds operating expenses for three months. Staff leadership can use this fund at their discretion to manage cash flow issues and support budgeted expenses. The second fund is the fund that holds operating expenses for 12 months. This fund is board-restricted and is only meant to be used in emergencies to help with substantial changes in our financial position or to, in extremis, fund an orderly wind-down of Crossref’s operations. Furthermore, the board’s investment committee established guidelines for investing our operating and investment surpluses. Any surpluses are first applied to supporting the 3-month fund. Once that funding goal is met, any surpluses are applied to the 12-month fund. And once both the 3-month and 12-month funding goals are met, any further surpluses will be put into another board-restricted fund that can be used to fund new investments or new Crossref initiatives.

But again, the simple yellow mark against this item does not capture this level of detail. We only get to turn it green once we have the 12-month fund in place.

It looks like we will meet the goal in 2022, but it is hard to say exactly when. If we did shades of color- we might make it chartreuse. But nobody wants to see chartreuse. So while we have made significant progress here, our commitment to maintaining a 12-month contingency fund remains yellow until we have reached our goal.

Patent non-assertion stays yellow

The second yellow mark was against our publishing a patent-non-assertion statement. This feels like a missed opportunity because it will be straightforward for us to do, but we have not yet done it. We have never applied for patents, and we don’t intend to start. In short, nothing is blocking us from doing this other than our natural reluctance to have to draft anything that involves lawyers. Our lawyers are very nice people, but everything we have to draft with them makes our eyes glaze over. We need to get this done ASAP in 2022.

Open source remains yellow

The third yellow mark makes me cringe because, as technical director, it is firmly in my bailiwick. We have committed to open-sourcing all of our code. In last year’s self-audit, I predicted that we should be able to open all of our code within 12 to 18 months. I was wrong. That means this commitment remains yellow. And what’s more- it is likely to remain yellow for a year or two. Let me try and explain why.

First, I should note that all new services that we’ve written since 2007 have been released as open-source (under an MIT license). These include our REST API, Crossmark, Metadata Search, and Event Data. You can find all our open-source code on Gitlab.

This leaves us with our “content system” with its legacy code, which handles content registration, OAI-PMH, OpenURL, and XML APIs. This code was originally developed for Crossref by a third party (who I won’t name because they are in no way to blame for our predicament). Crossref only took over the development of the code base internally ~ 2010. But the system has accumulated over twenty years of technical debt and includes many once-common engineering practices that are deprecated (to put it delicately). Additionally, the code is a labyrinth of dependencies on very old libraries under very old licenses.

And although we have spent much of the past two years replacing critical parts of the system’s authentication and authorization code, I am certain that there remain swathes of code that, under scrutiny, would prove a security nightmare.

Now we know that so-called “security through obscurity” is bad practice. Our legacy code base illustrates the point. We had credentials embedded in the code. We had backdoors and application-level root access. We had countless places where we didn’t sanitize input. But the code was private- and so it gave developers a false sense of confidence when they occasionally made these shortcuts in the interest of developing new features more quickly. And in those early days of hyper-growth, we often had to develop things very, very quickly. Technical debt, like any debt, is a tradeoff.

As I said- we’ve cleaned a ton of this stuff up. For example, we’ve replaced our primary authentication system. But this experience has made us better appreciate just how difficult it would be to harden a system this old.

And besides, we are already replacing it - albeit incrementally. We have been extracting and rewriting key components of the old system, and we plan to continue to extract and rewrite until there is nothing left of the old code. All this new code is, naturally, open-source. And it follows modern security practices.

And so we face a difficult choice- do we try and fix code that is hard to fix and that we are replacing anyway- or do we just focus just on replacing the code and making sure the new, open-source code follows modern security best -practices? We’ve chosen to take the latter route. But it does mean this entry will have a yellow circle next to it for a few more years as we replace things.

Open data moves from yellow to green

And this brings us to our final yellow mark- which was next to the principle of open data. The root of the problem is that what we colloquially call “Crossref metadata” is a mix of elements, some of which come from our members, some from third parties, and some from Crossref itself. These elements, in turn, each have different copyright implications.

On top of this, Crossref has terms and conditions for its members and terms and conditions for specific services. These terms and conditions grant Crossref the right to do things with some classes of metadata and not do things with other classes of metadata - regardless of copyright.

The net result is that users can freely use and redistribute any metadata they retrieve via our APIs or in our periodic public data files. But it also means we cannot just slap a CC0 waiver on all the data. Instead, we have to specify exactly what copyright and terms apply to each class of data. We’d never done this in a clear and accessible way, so some of our users were understandably concerned that maybe we were hedging or perhaps the reuse rights were unclear. But we are not hedging; they are clear. They just weren’t documented. And now they are. In human-readable form. And soon-to-be in machine-readable form. So we can move this from yellow to green.

Reflections on the year since our adoption of POSI

When the Crossref board adopted POSI last year, frankly, a few of us were surprised. We never doubted Crossref’s direction as an open infrastructure organisation, but we were not sure that others would see the value in making a public commitment to the principles. We’d heard some people say that they thought adopting them would be seen as “Virtue Signaling.” Which, to be fair, it is. This shouldn’t be surprising or contentious. Our entire scholarly communication system is based on virtue signaling. But, of course, the term “virtue signaling” (with scare quotes) is also sometimes used to insinuate that such signaling is disingenuous and designed primarily for marketing purposes. And that would be a real danger. But the principles were drafted with a built-in safeguard against disingenuous use. The commitments POSI lists are practical things that can be verified by anyone. Is our data open? Does the diversity of our board reflect the diversity of our stakeholders?

So from the start, we knew that the community would be able to hold us to our commitments. And knowing that made it imperative that we develop a mechanism and process for tracking whether we were meeting them. Thus was born the self-audit.

And the self-audit, in turn, has served as a forcing function to ensure that we didn’t just launch a proclamation and then forget about it. We needed to integrate our POSI commitments into all aspects of our day-to-day work. As such, “Live up to POSI” is now a prominent part of Crossref’s Strategic Agenda. POSI has become a fundamental part of our planning and our public product roadmap. POSI has even become a part of our internal staff annual development plans.

Adopting POSI has changed the way we work. It has changed the way the board works. It has changed the way staff works.

And we hope that it is having a similar effect on our fellow POSI Posse.

But how about changing the way POSI works?

Now that Crossref and the nine other members of the POSI Posse have had a year of considering and/or living up to the POSI standards, what would we change? What would we add?

A few themes have started to emerge as we’ve fielded questions from the current POSI Posse and others who have expressed an interest in adopting POSI.

How does POSI apply to non-membership organisations?
Can POSI apply to commercial organisations?
How could POSI be extended to apply to open infrastructure organisations outside of scholarly communication?
How in the hell do you pronounce “POSI?”

We’ve tried to answer some of these questions in the POSI FAQ, but can we update POSI so that we don’t need the FAQ? Or at least so that we can start a new FAQ?

And, critically, if we change POSI, how do we ensure we make it stronger and not weaker? Because, to be candid, some of the questions that we’ve fielded have come from parties concerned that POSI is too restrictive. That, for example, the stipulation that revenue should be based on services and not on data makes for inflexible business models. Yes. It does. Deliberately.

Because one of the biggest barriers to a community being able to fork digital infrastructure is closed (incl. fee-based) data. And one of the fundamental positions of POSI is one the authors learned from open-source communities. This is that these efforts can fail no matter how much care you take to ensure financial sustainability and how much care you take to ensure community-based governance. The ultimate power the open-source community has is to take the code and fork it. This is the insurance policy that helps keep open source projects honest. And we have tried our best to bake this lesson into the POSI principles. We don’t want to weaken POSI. They are, after all, principles.

So in 2022, we look forward to more organisations endorsing POSI. And the current POSI Posse has started a conversation about how we can strengthen the principles and also extend them so that they can more easily be applied to different kinds of organisations and perhaps even in different sectors. A summary of these discussions will be published in the coming weeks.

But how will we open these conversations to the broader community? How will we engage those who have yet to adopt the principles but are interested in doing so? What about those interested but perhaps only if they are adapted in some way?

We already have a mechanism for soliciting feedback, questions, and suggestions concerning POSI. However, it is a relatively primitive system, based on either sending email to one of the POSI Posse or raising a GitLab ticket. It was the best we could do in the short time we had to put together the POSI site. An MVP, if you will. The feedback mechanism served us well over the past year; we engaged with many interested parties and even managed to help nine of them adopt the principles.

But as with all things POSI - there is room for improvement. And so, we hope to have a more user-friendly way to solicit public feedback and hold discussions. This feedback and our own experiences with adopting POSI over the past year will, in turn, inform our efforts at revising POSI to take into account the things we’ve learned since POSI was originally written.

So look out for announcements on the POSI site. And we look forward to another year of expanding the list of POSI adopters and continuing our own POSI progress. If you’re POSI-curious, get in touch with any of the ten POSI adopters to start a conversation about your own path towards truly open infrastructure.

Crossref’s Board votes to adopt the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure

Geoffrey Bilder — Wed, 02 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0000

TL;DR

On November 11th 2020, the Crossref Board voted to adopt the “Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure” (POSI). POSI is a list of sixteen commitments that will now guide the board, staff, and Crossref’s development as an organisation into the future. It is an important public statement to make in Crossref’s twentieth anniversary year. Crossref has followed principles since its founding, and meets most of the POSI, but publicly committing to a codified and measurable set of principles is a big step. If 2019 was a reflective turning point, and mid-2020 was about Crossref committing to open scholarly infrastructure and collaboration, this is now announcing a very deliberate path. And we’re just a little bit giddy about it.

Here is a picture of me being “giddy.”

If you just want to see the principles that the board has endorsed, you can see them here:

https://doi-org.pluma.sjfc.edu/10.24343/C34W2H

But if you also want some background and want to understand some of the implications of Crossref adopting the principles, read on…

Warning - this is a long post.

Background and Origins

Some of you may be surprised that we’ve done this - simply because you always assumed we operated under these principles anyway. And we have. Mostly.

The “Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure” were largely inspired by a set of uncodified rules and norms that Crossref had been operating under for years. So how did we get to this circular situation where we are making a big announcement about adopting something we have largely been doing anyway?

Six years ago I met with Cameron Neylon and Jennifer Lin when they were still at PLOS and we decided that we wanted to write a blog post about…

Well, it doesn’t really matter.

We never finished writing that blog post because we got distracted by an issue that we kept seeing which was that services that the scholarly community depended on were increasingly taking directions that seemed antithetical to the community’s interests.

We were concerned because the scholarly community was becoming increasingly distrustful of infrastructure services. We wondered if there were any practices that we could point to that might mitigate the risk of infrastructure being co-opted and that would help build trust. Fortunately, we had two great models to look at:

Crossref, which had a set of informal rules and norms that it had followed since its founding (e.g., transparency of operations, being business-model neutral, one member one vote).
ORCID, an organisation that was spun-out of Crossref and which had adopted a written set of principles, based largely on codifying practices that they had seen at Crossref.

And so we wrote these practices up and added a few that we thought were missing. And we posted a different blog post to the one we had originally planned. It was titled “The Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructures.” And the blog post became popular. And we did a bunch of talks about the Principles. And, much to our surprise, POSI has influenced the directions and policies of a number of organisations and initiatives since, including SPARC, Invest in Open Infrastructure, Open Data Institute, OA Switchboard, and others.

Elsewhere, community organisations and likeminded community members helped further develop the implementation of POSI through discussions at FORCE11 and through additional blog posts and books. Some, like Dryad and ROR, started to work to align their organisational structure to embrace POSI.

And this left Crossref in a strange position. Although we were largely the inspiration for these Principles - we ourselves had never codified and adopted them.

Motivations. Why Now?

Because it is the right thing to do for those that currently depend on Crossref

It is a healthy thing for the organisation to do. Adopting these principles strengthens Crossref’s governance. After twenty years, Crossref infrastructure has become critical to a broad segment of the community. As our membership profile changes, and as our broader stakeholder community expands, we need to explicitly evolve our governance to reflect stakeholders. And it would be irresponsible to continue to have our governance guided by a set of informal conventions. Particularly in the context of a global political period where we’ve seen the informal operating conventions and policy understandings of at least two major democracies ignored or discarded.

Because it could help make the creation of new, sustainable, open scholarly infrastructure easier and less expensive

There is a lot of new interest in open scholarly infrastructure. New infrastructure services and systems are being proposed almost every month. Many of them seek extensive advice and consulting from Crossref. A subset of these are incubated through Crossref. And a subset of these become Crossref services. Others are spun out as separate organisations (e.g., ORCID) or were specifically initiated as collaborations (e.g., ROR).

Our experience has been that the vast majority of work involved in these infrastructure projects was in establishing trust amongst the stakeholder community. We think that Crossref adopting the principles will help to address fundamental questions about accountability and sustainability that are inevitably raised when a new constituency approaches Crossref with an idea for collaborating on a new or existing infrastructure service. In short, adopting the principles will make future collaboration easier.

Adopting the Principles: Plus ça change

The Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI) proposes three areas that an Open Infrastructure organisation can address in order to garner the trust of the broader scholarly community: accountability (governance), funding (sustainability), and protection of community interests (insurance).

POSI proposes a set of concrete commitments that an organisation can make to build trust in each of these areas. There are 16 such commitments. Of these 16 commitments, Crossref is already completely or partially meeting the requirements of 15. And adopting the 16th commitment just formalises a direction Crossref has been heading toward for several years.

Critically, “adopting” POSI does not mean that we have to instantly meet all of the criteria. After all, when ORCID adopted its principles, it didn’t meet any of them. They were adopted to make a statement of intent. And they were publicly adopted so that the community could measure the organisation’s progress as well as to allow the community to detect if ORCID started to stray from its stated intentions.

Adopting the principles is akin to adopting a mission statement or a vision statement. It is an aspirational guide, not a description of the status quo.

Having said that, the principles are more concrete than a mission or vision statement, and this makes them easier to measure.

It is also important to note that the criteria are designed to balance each other. So, for example, one would not want to change the governance or business model to better support the mission if doing so would also threaten the sustainability of the organisation.

And finally, meeting a commitment is an ongoing process - it is not a one-off event. The organisation needs to keep measuring their performance against the principles in order to make sure that they have not inadvertently regressed.

Implications

Before adopting the principles, we did a candid self-audit to see which ones we thought we currently met and which ones we still needed to work on.

The three areas and sixteen commitments that are proposed in POSI are all designed to ensure that an infrastructure can not be co-opted by a particular party or interest group.

And the last area, “Insurance,” is the backstop that makes sure that, if some in the community feel that the infrastructure organisation has gone in a radically wrong direction, they can recreate the infrastructure as it was when they were comfortable with it, and they will not be hindered by practices or policies that lock them into the existing organisation.

This “insurance” is very much inspired by Crossref. Crossref itself was built, in part, to make sure that publishers were not locked into platforms and that journals and societies were not locked into publishers. Using the indirect Crossref DOI linking mechanism ensures that content can move between platforms and publishers without breaking vital citation links. Moving between platforms or publishers is never easy. And it isn’t cheap. But using Crossref DOIs for citation links at least makes it possible.

Crossref has an extra insurance level as well. It is built on the DOI and Handle infrastructure. If Crossref were to take a direction that some of its members found unacceptable, those members could join another DOI Registry agency more amenable to them. It wouldn’t be easy. It wouldn’t be cheap. But it would be possible.

And this knowledge helps keep Crossref grounded and attuned to the needs and concerns of its members. We know that our members are not “trapped” with us. We don’t take lightly the trust placed in us. And we know that there is trust still to build with various corners of our community. And it is this knowledge that helps keep us from developing the disdainful, take-it-or-leave-it, attitude that can be the cliché characteristic of infrastructure organisations.

So the fundamental, overarching goal of POSI is to set out principles that ensure that the stakeholders of an infrastructure organisation have a clear say in setting its agenda and priorities and that, in extremis, the stakeholders can leave and create an alternative infrastructure if the original organisation becomes unresponsive, hostile, or disappears.

As we look at how Crossref currently maps to the principles, please keep in mind three things:

If we have marked something as green, that doesn’t mean we think we do this perfectly. It simply means that we already have internal processes that focus on this commitment and we have evidence that these processes have thus far been working.
The fact that something is green and has “thus-far been working” does not mean that we should rest easy. We could regress. Our processes need to be able to detect and address regressions.
The commitments are supposed to be balanced. So we don’t want to do something to turn something green if it has an irreversible impact on another commitment. So, for example, we should not address a shortfall in the contingency fund by generating revenue in a way that ultimately hurts Crossref’s mission.
The implication of #3 above is that it may take us some time to meet all of the commitments. But again, the community can measure our progress against meeting the commitments.

So how does Crossref currently meet POSI?

Governance

🟢 Coverage across the research enterprise.
🟢 Non-discriminatory membership
🟢 Transparent operations
🟢 Cannot lobby
🟢 Living will
🟢 Formal incentives to fulfil mission & wind-down
🔴 Stakeholder Governed

Sustainability

🟢 Time-limited funds are used only for time-limited activities.
🟢 Goal to generate surplus
🟡 Goal to create contingency fund to support operations for 12 months
🟢 Mission-consistent revenue generation
🟢 Revenue based on services, not data

Insurance

🟢 Available data (within constraints of privacy laws)
🟡 Patent non-assertion
🟡 Open source
🟡 Open data (within constraints of privacy laws)

Governance

If an infrastructure is successful and becomes critical to the community, we need to ensure it is not co-opted by particular interest groups. Similarly, we need to ensure that any organisation does not confuse serving itself with serving its stakeholders. How do we ensure that the system is run “humbly”, that it recognises it doesn’t have a right to exist beyond the support it provides for the community and that it plans accordingly? How do we ensure that the system remains responsive to the changing needs of the community?

– POSI

In the area of governance, Crossref clearly meets six of the seven criteria listed. We will discuss these first.

🟢 Coverage across the research enterprise

it is increasingly clear that research transcends disciplines, geography, institutions and stakeholders. The infrastructure that supports it needs to do the same.

– POSI

Crossref includes members who publish in the STM, HSS and Professional spheres. There are still some gaps in our coverage (e.g., monographs, law), but this is not through policy or lack of trying.

Crossref has members in 139 countries and has agreements with people in 150 countries. However note that geographic diversity is not the same as language diversity. Although we have members in many countries, the vast majority of our registered content is still in English. This does not reflect the trends in research outputs. We still need to do a lot of work to support non-English publications and non-English speaking members. But we have already identified this as a priority and are working on a number of initiatives to better support research communication in languages other than English.

🟢 Non-discriminatory membership

we see the best option as an “opt-in” approach with a principle of non-discrimination where any stakeholder group may express an interest and should be welcome. The process of representation in day to day governance must also be inclusive with governance that reflects the demographics of the membership

– POSI

It is first worth noting that “non-discriminatory” does not mean that we cannot have standards, obligations, and rules that all members of Crossref have to adhere to. It simply means that said rules are clear and that we apply them uniformly.

Crossref has always had catholic membership criteria. Although we have until now historically defined ourselves as a primarily “publisher” organisation, we define “publisher” loosely as anybody who produces content that commonly references or is referenced by scholarly literature. Historically, this has included NGOs, IGO’s, standards bodies, institutional archives, and professional publishers. More recently it has expanded to include preprint archives and funders.

The requirements for joining Crossref are few. We admit any applicant who:

Agrees to the obligations of membership.
Can pay the fees.

In practice we have historically had a policy of rejecting individuals as members. But even this is probably a pointless distinction as many of our members are “organisations” consisting of one person.

And fundamental to Crossref’s governance is that a member’s influence in the governance of Crossref is not tied to the level of financial investment they make in the organisation. All members have the same single vote. All board members have one vote.

Recently, we have also made changes to our governance and election process. The first to introduce contested elections for the board. The second to ensure that board membership was proportionally balanced amongst the membership tiers. Even as recently as 2017, when the Board established a Governance Committee, the idea of weighting votes to membership tiers was roundly rejected - on principle.

This is not to say that we can relax on this point. For example, as more funders and institutions join Crossref, we will need to make sure that our governance reflects that. We talk about this more in the section on governance.

Some will also point out that our fees are themselves a form of discrimination as they can still be an insurmountable barrier to some in the community. We understand this and, without trying to make light of or dismiss the situation, we are also confident that we are constantly looking at ways to lower the barrier-to-entry for joining Crossref. Our fees have gone steadily down since we were founded and we are constantly reviewing them to try and make them more equitable. We have created a category of sponsoring organisations to defray the costs of membership. We collaborate closely with organisations like PKP to try and build tools and services that make participation in Crossref easier and less expensive.

🟢 Transparent operations

achieving trust in the selection of representatives to governance groups will be best achieved through transparent processes and operations in general (within the constraints of privacy laws).

– POSI

Crossref has transparent finances and a transparent governance process. Much of this is simply a byproduct of the regulations governing non-profits with tax exempt status in the US and our specific registration as a non-profit membership association in New York State.

Until fairly recently, the obvious exception to this was Crossref’s use of pre-picked slates in board elections, but we have since improved this with an open election process.

🟢 Cannot lobby

the community, not infrastructure organisations, should collectively drive regulatory change. An infrastructure organisation’s role is to provide a base for others to work on and should depend on its community to support the creation of a legislative environment that affects it

– POSI

Crossref has never lobbied. Partly this is a byproduct of our commitment to be business-model neutral as most lobbying efforts in the industry seem to center around promoting the views held by members who share a business model.

But also, Crossref has never lobbied on its own behalf. We have always relied on our members and the community to point out and promote Crossref if there is any area of legislative policy that the Crossref infrastructure could help with.

🟢 Living will

a powerful way to create trust is to publicly describe a plan addressing the condition under which an organisation would be wound down, how this would happen, and how any ongoing assets could be archived and preserved when passed to a successor organisation. Any such organisation would need to honour this same set of principles

– POSI

Crossref has two relationships that require us to set out plans for an orderly wind-down.

The first is a condition of our incorporation as a non-profit in the state of New York. This explicitly includes a provision that requires us to hand over our operations and responsibilities to a successor non profit organisation that has a similar constituency and mission. The NY State Attorney General reviews and approves any major changes to ensure this requirement is met.

The second is a condition of our being members of the DOI Foundation, which includes provisions for us to hand over management of DOIs to another registration agency should Crossref ever wind-down. It is worth noting that we have already seen this clause invoked for other registration agencies that have wound down and who have, as part of the DOI Foundation provisions, handed responsibility for their DOIs to Crossref.

This is not to say that we are perfect on this score. We do not, for example, have any single place that outlines the steps that would need to be taken in order to execute the requirements laid out by our obligations to the state of New York and the IDF.

🟢 Formal incentives to fulfil mission & wind-down

infrastructures exist for a specific purpose and that purpose can be radically simplified or even rendered unnecessary by technological or social change. If it is possible the organisation (and staff) should have direct incentives to deliver on the mission and wind down.”

– POSI

Crossref has a track record of periodically reviewing our services and decommissioning those that are no longer needed - either because they have fulfilled their specific mission or because there is simply waning interest in them (arguably, the same thing).

Again, this is not to say we are perfect on this score. We also have, by our last count, about 30 specialised, overlapping APIs- many of which are used by just a handful of users. These have escaped our normal scrutiny because they never had the status of a formal service and had not been through our product management process.

But still, Crossref has long made it a habit to question its own existence. At virtually every board annual strategy meeting we ask the question “will technology X make Crossref unnecessary?” We need to continue with the attitude that the best thing we could do for our members is to make ourselves unnecessary.

🔴 Stakeholder Governed

a board-governed organisation drawn from the stakeholder community builds more confidence that the organisation will take decisions driven by community consensus and consideration of different interests.

– POSI

Overall, Crossref meets most of the Governance requirements with the notable exception of broader stakeholder involvement.

Of course, the key to this is how you define “stakeholder.”

Some may dispute this and argue that Crossref “stakeholders” are “publishers” because they are the parties that invested in creating Crossref.

But this narrow definition of “stakeholder” - focusing solely on those who have “invested”- is not widely held. In fact, common phrases like “stakeholder economy” and “stakeholder capitalism” describe the exact opposite- systems that don’t just focus on the “investor”, but which instead balance benefits to the investor with benefits to employees, the broader community, society, and the environment.

It is this latter, broader definition of “stakeholder” that is used in POSI.

And just in case anybody still thinks that people other than publishers don’t consider themselves “stakeholders’ in the Crossref infrastructure, we simply point to this, recently tweeted by Brea Manuel, a researcher, in celebration of their publication in Nature Reviews Chemistry (read it, and learn how to recruit and retain a diverse workforce):

Sustainability

Financial sustainability is a key element of creating trust. “Trust” often elides multiple elements: intentions, resources, and checks and balances. An organisation that is both well meaning and has the right expertise will still not be trusted if it does not have sustainable resources to execute its mission. How do we ensure that an organisation has the resources to meet its obligations?

– POSI

In the area of sustainability, Crossref clearly meets four of the five of the criteria listed and is most of the way to meeting the fifth.

🟢 Time-limited funds are used only for time-limited activities

day to day operations should be supported by day to day sustainable revenue sources. Grant dependency for funding operations makes them fragile and more easily distracted from building core infrastructure.

– POSI

Crossref has never supported production activities based on grants. Indeed Crossref’s delivery on this point is what inspired the approach taken in this principle. This distinguishes Crossref from many grant-funded infrastructure initiatives which either barely stay afloat or disappear altogether. Even those that survive often do so by pursuing solutions that align with their funder’s interest over their user’s needs.

🟢 Goal to generate surplus

organisations which define sustainability based merely on recovering costs are brittle and stagnant. It is not enough to merely survive, it has to be able to adapt and change. To weather economic, social and technological volatility, they need financial resources beyond immediate operating costs.

– POSI

Crossref has always attempted to generate a surplus. Crossref has generated surpluses since 2002 - so for 18 years of its 20 year existence.

🟡 Goal to create contingency fund to support operations for 12 months

a high priority should be generating a contingency fund that can support a complete, orderly wind down (12 months in most cases). This fund should be separate from those allocated to covering operating risk and investment in development.

– POSI

Crossref currently has a contingency fund that would support operations for 9 months. Although this may be standard for industry, it seems prudent to extend this in the case of infrastructure organisations, particularly when they are membership organisations. First, the very fact that something is infrastructure implies that the systemic effects of its failing ungracefully could have industry-wide repercussions. Second, the decision-making process of a membership organisation whose governance is voluntary is inherently slower. It has taken Crossref Board 9 months, for example, just to discuss the ramifications of adopting POSI.

Given our recent financial performance, we expect Crossref could comfortably increase the contingency fund to support 12 months of operations within the next 2-3 years.

🟢 Mission-consistent revenue generation

potential revenue sources should be considered for consistency with the organisational mission and not run counter to the aims of the organisation.

– POSI

Crossref has a good track record of periodically reviewing our services and fees and adjusting them to better support Crossref’s mission. The role of the Membership & Fees Committee in advising the Board has been critical. The very first example of this was in the early days of Crossref when we dropped matching fees because they were disincentivising members from linking their references. Crossref was also quick to recognise that, in order to support global research and reach smaller publishers in lower income countries, we had to develop a sponsoring mechanism to help defray the costs and ameliorate the technical complexity of participating in Crossref. Most recently we have taken the decision to drop fees for Crossmark as it was clear they had become a barrier to our members distributing retraction and correction notifications in a machine actionable format.

🟢 Revenue based on services, not data

data related to the running of the research enterprise should be a community property. Appropriate revenue sources might include value-added services, consulting, API Service Level Agreements or membership fees

– POSI

Crossref does not charge for or resell its members’ data. Doing so would restrict dissemination and reduce the discoverability of our members’ content. Instead our revenue comes from a combination of membership fees and service fees. The DOI registration is a member service that generates the bulk of our revenue. But our SLA-backed APIs are becoming increasingly popular as members and others seek to integrate Crossref metadata into their production workflows and services.

Insurance

Even with the best possible governance structures, critical infrastructure can still be co opted by a subset of stakeholders or simply drift away from the needs of the community. Long term trust requires the community to believe it retains control. Here we can learn from Open Source practices. To ensure that the community can take control if necessary, the infrastructure must be “forkable.” The community could replicate the entire system if the organisation loses the support of stakeholders, despite all established checks and balances. Each crucial part then must be legally and technically capable of replication, including software systems and data. Forking carries a high cost, and in practice this would always remain challenging. But the ability of the community to recreate the infrastructure will create confidence in the system. The possibility of forking prompts all players to work well together, spurring a virtuous cycle. Acts that reduce the feasibility of forking then are strong signals that concerns should be raised. The following principles should ensure that, as a whole, the organisation in extremis is forkable.

– POSI

Crossref clearly meets two of the four Insurance requirements. And the remaining two can be met easily with some clarification and time.

The “governance” section of POSI is designed to ensure that an infrastructure organisation is beholden to the broader stakeholder community and that it can not be co-opted by a particular party or special interest. And the “sustainability” section of POSI is designed to ensure that the infrastructure organisation takes the financial steps to ensure it can weather sudden changes in the financial or technical environment. But the last section, “insurance” is designed to protect stakeholder interests in case either “governance” or “sustainability” fail.

The term “forkable” comes from the Open Source software community where it is used to indicate when a software community’s interests diverge and they decide to split a project into several projects, with each new project focusing on a particular sub-community’s interests.

One of the immediate worries that people have when they first hear of the concept of “forkability” is that it will encourage the creation many variations of a project based on frivolous criteria. But this simply does not happen. Forking a project is never easy and takes a lot of effort. It is only done successfully when a critical mass of the community becomes unhappy with the direction a project is taking and is willing to take on the substantial burden of running an entirely separate project. Without such a critical mass, the fork just withers and has virtually no effect on the original project.

And the reason for this is simple, the mere knowledge that a project is “forkable” forces project maintainers to balance the interests of the community so that no sizable subgroup grows dissatisfied enough to fork the project.

Forkability encourages reponsivness to the community by making sure that the community is not “locked-in.”

Crossref itself was founded, in part, to prevent lock-in. Use of the DOI in linking citations makes it easier for publishers to move platforms, and for journals and societies to move between publishers.

And Crossref itself is architected in part to ensure that lock-in is not possible. Crossref is just one of several DOI registration agencies. Members unhappy with Crossref, can move to another DOI registration agency and their citation links will continue to work. But there are things we could do to make this even easier.

🟢 Available data (within constraints of privacy laws)

It is not enough that the data be made “open” if there is not a practical way to actually obtain it. Underlying data should be made easily available via periodic data dumps.

– POSI

Crossref provides public APIs that allow users to access Crossref metadata. We are planning to eventually release yearly public data files. We already did this once when we released a public data file in support of COVID-19 research. This in no way prevents the provision of data through paid Service Level Agreement tiers that provide guarantees of regularity, availability or reliability for those that need it. Existing Metadata Plus customers primarily use data that is available through the open API or existing dumps, but value additional services that support their use-cases.

🟡 Patent non-assertion

“The organisation should commit to a patent non-assertion covenant. The organisation may obtain patents to protect its own operations, but not use them to prevent the community from replicating the infrastructure.

– POSI

Crossref has never registered a patent. But the DOI Foundation, with significant support from Crossref, had to respond to (and then monitored) a set of patent applications that, if successful, the DOI System would infringe on. The applications were filed more than 15 years ago and haven’t been successful so these applications aren’t a current concern. As a result of this, the DOI Foundation adopted a patent policy in 2005 that covers all Registration Agencies and protects the DOI System. We may want to register protective patents in the future in order to enable us to defend ourselves against patent trolls.

The problem with patents is that they could be used by an organisation to prevent the infrastructure forking. One technique that has been used by major companies to assure communities that they will not be affected by patents, is to make a patent non-assertion covenant. For example, IBM, Microsoft and Google have made non-assertion statements in order to assure the open source and standards communities that they participate in that they will not co-opt an open source project or open standard by asserting patents on code or processes they contribute.

Though Crossref has never registered a patent, issuing a patent non-assertion covenant would help assure stakeholders that we would not use patents in the future to prevent the community from forking the system.

🟡 Open source

All software required to run the infrastructure should be available under an open source license. This does not include other software that may be involved with running the organisation.

– POSI

All code for new initiatives since 2007 has been released under an open source MIT license. The legacy Content System code could be open sourced within 12-18 months with no extra effort.

If some Crossref stakeholders wanted to “fork” Crossref or leave for another DOI registration agency, their biggest hurdle would be trying to recreate the twenty years worth of rules and algorithms we use for processing and matching metadata. Without access to the source code of the system, it would be almost impossible for these to be reverse engineered.

Similarly, without access to the source code of our system - it is difficult to ensure that Crossref is, indeed, non-discriminatory in the way it works with member content. It would be possible, for example, for Crossref to modify its matching algorithms to deliberately favour or deprecate some members’ content.

If we want to assure the community that we are managing our member metadata fairly and if we want to provide even better insurance to our members and the broader stakeholders, we should make all of our code open source.

The legacy so-called “CS” (content system) is in the process of being refactored. The only reason we cannot open source this immediately is that we still need to make some security changes to it. These security changes are being done as part of a current refactoring project and should be completed without any extra effort within 12-18 months. After that, we can open source the code.

🟡 Open data (within constraints of privacy laws)

For an infrastructure to be forked it will be necessary to replicate all relevant data. The CC0 waiver is best practice in making data legally available. Privacy and data protection laws will limit the extent to which this is possible.

– POSI

Achieving this simply requires us clarifying copyright and license information and that this will not have any effect on the metadata registered in Crossref by our members.

First we should outline the current copyright status of a Crossref metadata record.

The fundamental issue is that what we colloquially call “Crossref metadata” is actually a mix of elements, some of which come from our members, and some of which come from third parties and some of which comes from Crossref itself. These elements, in turn, each have different copyright implications.

On top of this, Crossref has terms and conditions for its members and terms and conditions for specific services. These grant Crossref the right to do things with some classes of metadata and not do things with other classes of metadata - regardless of copyright.

Let’s start with the easiest case. Crossref already has two services with CC0 metadata:

The Open Funder Registry
Event Data

Obviously, the POSI open data provision would not change anything for either service.

The next easiest case is private data. Crossref collects PII (usernames, passwords IP addresses, etc.). This would remain private. And we will continue to manage it in conformance with GDPR. It would not be affected by the open data provision of POSI.

Next let’s look at what most people probably think of as “Crossref metadata”- that is, the basic bibliographic metadata that Crossref has collected from its members since its founding (titles, authors, volumes, issues, etc). For the record- this does not include abstracts.

Since 2000 Crossref has stated that it considers this basic bibliographic metadata to be “facts.” And under US law (Crossref is registered in the US) these facts are not subject to copyright at all. If this data is not subject to copyright at all, there is no way Crossref can “waive the copyright” under CC0. This metadata would not be affected at all under the open data provision of POSI.

More recently, some of our members have been submitting abstracts to Crossref. These are copyrighted. In the case of subscription publishers, the copyright usually belongs to the publisher. In the case of open access publishers, the copyright most often belongs to the authors. In both cases, Crossref cannot waive copyright under CC0 because the copyright is not ours to waive. However, we are allowed to redistribute the abstracts with our metadata because that is part of the terms and conditions we have with our members. We already have language that notes the distinct copyright status of the abstracts in our metadata, but, ideally, we should extend our schema to make that information available in a machine actionable form as well. In short, the copyright status of abstracts would not be affected at all by the open data provision of POSI.

Crossref also has its Reference Distribution Policy that the board adopted in 2017 - limited and closed references are not distributed by Crossref and this won’t change. [EDIT 6th June 2022 - all references are now open by default with the March 2022 board vote to remove any restrictions on reference distribution].

And this leaves us with the one thing that would be affected by the open data provision of POSI- data that is created by Crossref itself as a byproduct of our services. By law, this data is under Crossref’s copyright unless we explicitly waive it. This data includes things like, participation reports, conflict reports, member IDs and Cited-by counts (just the counts, not the references) and any aggregations of our otherwise uncopyrighted data that might, by aggregating it, be subject to sui generis database rights. At the moment, although we distribute this data freely and without restriction, we have no explicit copyright attached to it. All we would be seeking to do is explicitly say that data generated by Crossref will be distributed CC0. Again, at first it would be enough to just specify this in human readable form, along with our other copyright information. But, eventually, we would want to include this information in machine actionable form in the metadata itself.

To summarise:

Metadata type	Example	Current Copyright	Change under POSI
Already CC0	Open Funder Registry, Event Data	CC0	None
Private	Log files, user IDs	Private	None
Bibliographic	Title, authors, volume, issue	Facts	None
Closed references		Facts - but no distribution under the reference distribution board policy from 2017	None
Limited references		Facts - but no public distribution under the reference distribution board policy from 2017	None
Open references		Facts	None
Crossref-generated data	Participation data, reports, extracts	Copyright Crossref	CC0

[EDIT 6th June 2022 - all references are now open by default with the March 2022 board vote to remove any restrictions on reference distribution].

No member metadata will be affected by our adopting the open data provision of POSI. The only data that would be affected is data generated by Crossref itself.

However, the adoption of this principle would likely have an effect on our decisions about future services. For example, under this principle we would not launch any new services where the data was not freely reusable or the copyright of the data was not CC0.

Conclusion and Next steps

So again we face the paradox- We are announcing something that is simultaneously insignificant and important. It is insignificant in that we are simply saying that we will continue to do what we have largely been doing since Crossref was founded. But it is important because, in codifying what we have been doing, we are also confirming that these principles actually worked. That they were essential to building the trust that allowed us to function over the past twenty years, and they will continue to be essential in the future- as we look to work with existing organisations to strengthen current infrastructures, and work with new stakeholders to develop new infrastructures.

So much of the work in building scholarly infrastructure is about building trust. We would love to see other organisations and services adopt POSI as well. Doing so would help us to collaborate more efficiently by allowing us to confirm from the outset that our fundamental values align. And having a set of verifiable commitments that we can point to will also help build the community’s trust in our respective organisations and services.

And this brings us to an important point. Although POSI might have been inspired by Crossref, POSI is not a “Crossref thang” and it never has been. The movement to create open scholarly infrastructures and to define and clarify the ground rules within which they operate has become a much broader community concern.

To this end, we’ve worked with some sibling infrastructure organisations—such as Dryad and ROR—as well as the original authors of POSI to create a website where we could host the list of principles independent of the original blog post and independent of any single organisation:

openscholarlyinfrastructure.org

Minimally, this provides a place for anybody who wants to link to or cite POSI - either because they are endorsing them, or because they are simply discussing them.

If we see enough activity of this type, then the site could evolve to become a register of those organisations and services who have formally adopted POSI and a place where they can link to their self-assessments against the principles.

The community promoting, discussing and applying POSI has long since grown beyond the original authors of the POSI blog post. And it is also much larger than any single organisation. Our hope is that this website encourages that growth.

And, of course, in addition to the external outreach and coordination, Crossref still has internal work to do in addressing the outstanding issues that were raised in our own self-assessment above. We need to increase our contingency funds. We need to publish a patent non-assertion covenant. We need to open source our core software. And we need to clarify our metadata license information and make it explicit that Crossref waives copyright (using CC-0) for any metadata generated by Crossref. And, finally, as Crossref expands and starts working with different stakeholders, we will need to adjust our governance and the composition of our board accordingly. We will, of course, post updates here as we make progress on addressing these areas.

2020 marked Crossref’s 20th birthday. What a grim year to have an anniversary. But we are, at least, ending it on a little bit of a high. We are delighted that the issue of open scholarly infrastructure has become so prominent in the community. And we are eager to help strengthen and extend this infrastructure. The decision by Crossref’s board to adopt POSI is the equivalent of Crossref finally adopting a written constitution. And it is a fitting launch to our next twenty years.