Chuck Koscher presents the new metadata developments at Crossref including posted content, peer reviews and relationships. Presented at Crossref LIVE local events in Pretoria and Cape Town, 17th and 19th April 2018.

1. New
Metadata
Developments

2. Here now
•posted content
•peer-reviews
•relationships

3. Posted content
(aka preprints)

4. It’s important to clearly label the content as a preprint using a
preprint-specific schema. It’s not advisable to register preprints
as data, components, articles, or anything else, because
a preprint is not any of those things. Our service allows
you to ensure the relationships between preprints and any
eventual article are asserted in the metadata, and
accurately readable by both humans and machines.

11. The pre-print host must link to the
peer reviewed article if one exists.
Crossref provides services to pre-print
publishers helping identify the existence of
a peer reviewed copy
Crossref gives preference to the peer
reviewed article when distributing DOIs

12. peer reviews

14. Crossref worked with our members to
launch Peer Review Metadata:

15. New content type: Reviews
• Assets across peer review history for any and all review rounds:
referee reports, decision letters, and author responses
• Pre & post publication
• Dedicated metadata
• characterizes peer review asset: recommendation, type,
license, contributor info, competing interests
• makes the review process transparent: pre/post-publication,
revision round, review date

16. Research
publication
Review
Review
Review
Article/
preprint/etc.
metadata about
the review
process
Metadata about
the review

17. Metadata for reviews
• Party registering review content
• DOI of review
• Identifier of publication reviewed and link to it (relationship)
• Review stage (pre or post-publication)
• Title of review
• Date of review
• Person or organization: Name, ORCID, Affiliation, Role (Reader, Reviewer, Editor,
Assistant to reviewer, Stats reviewer, Author, External commenter)
• Review type (Referee Report, Editor Report, Author Comment, Community
Comment)
• License
• Competing interest
• Recommendation (major-revision, minor-revision, reject, reject-with-resubmit, accept)
• Running number/ review identifier (Internal number/identifier used to identify specific
review)
• Revision round (Revision round number, first submission defined as revision round 0)

18. Publishers registering peer reviews (as of 23 Jan 2018):
• 10.7287 - PeerJ (9544 reviews
• 10.21468 - SciPost, (317 reviews)
• 10.14293 - ScienceOpen (125 reviews)
Since launch Nov 2017:
9986 reviews total, pre and post-publication
Current peer reviews registered

19. relationships

21. Data DOI=10.15763/DBS.SCCSC.RR.0002

22. Data DOI=10.1175/2011JCLI4083.1

23. The source data
DOI’s metadata
automatically reflects
the relation claim

24. coming
•pending publications
•grant IDs
•conference IDs
•JATS deposits

25. Pending content

26. Current Issues
• broken links from unregistered DOIs undermine trust in
persistent links and availability of content
• publishers-
• cannot meet funder mandates that focus on acceptance
point for reporting
• advance publicity & press leave out DOIs or lead to broken
links
• researchers - cannot provide evidence of all publications in
grant and employment applications
• funders & institutions - cannot fully track research they support

27. Soon
Acceptance Publication
Pending Content Registration
• DOI is ‘live’
• Intent to publish statement
displayed (Crossref-hosted)
Full Content Registration
• DOI resolves to publication
• Intent to publish statement is
replaced

28. Metadata Requirements
Must include
• DOI
• Date of acceptance
• Publisher name
• Journal/Book/Conference title
• "Intent to publish” statement
(provided by publisher or Crossref
in its absence)
Should include
• Funding information (Open
Funder Registry)
• ORCID iDs
• License
• Author affiliation
• ISSN/ISBN
May include
• Publisher logo
• Custom "intent to publish”
statement
• Item title (e.g. article title)

30. Grant IDs

31. Today’s lookup
Funder
“Dropdown list” icon by Andrejs Kirma, from thenounproject.com
Department
Award #

32. What about?
Funder
“Dropdown list” icon by Andrejs Kirma, from thenounproject.com
Department
Award #

33. Why?
• Easier for authors to provide accurate information
• Government funders change names a lot, it’s
important to be able to redirect to them
• Global grant identifier based on DOIs makes sense:
overlaying global namespace on local identifiers will
help guard against overlap (like credit cards)

34. Next steps
Funder Working Group running at Crossref. They’ve
agreed that they’d like to proceed with this initiative.
Pilot with Wellcome, NIH and JST.
Next steps - business & fees group and a technology
and metadata group being established.
Hoping to move quickly on this.
https://www.crossref.org/blog/global-persistent-identifiers-for-grants-awards-and-facilities/

35. Conference IDs

36. Motivation
https://www.crossref.org/blog/taking-the-con-out-of-conferences/
Fake conferences that emerge, similar conference names

37. Next steps
Sanity check to see if we can produce a data model and coordinate any work
that is done on conference, project and organization identifiers.
Joint Crossref/DataCite working group to specifically explore conference and
project identifiers and determine how they relate both to each other and to our
already ongoing work with ORCID on organization identifiers.
Likely that the working group will discuss and explore how conference/project
identifiers might be used for increasing the transparency of peer review at
conferences, better attribution for programme chairs and program committee
members, and how they might be incorporated into other services.
Interested? community@crossref.org

38. JATS
no Crossref schema needed, just
send in the article file

42. Questions?

43. Thank You!