How to Manage Your Metadata with Crossref

Editor's Notes

• #2: Importance of completeness and accuracy Making corrections and additions How to do this - OJS, web deposit, Metadata Manager (keep it brief) Participation reports (and how to find out if your metadata is accurate) How to get help with this
• #3: Thank you for letting us join you virtually today. My name is Vanessa, I’ve been at Crossref for 3 years now and my role is Community Outreach Manager. I manage our LIVE local events both online and in-person when we are able to again, get feedback and input from our community around the world, webinars, and the Crossref ambassador programme. Prior to Crossref I worked in International Development with a focus on access to scholarly information and scientific research in developing countries. With me today is Rachael Lammey, Rachael is Head of Community Outreach, she previously worked in publishing before joining Crossref in 2012. At Crossref she has worked in Product Management, managing our Similarity Check service, before moving over to the Community Outreach team in 2016. Today we will be talking to you about Crossref’s mission and purpose, what a DOI is, the importance of scholarly metadata and how you register references at Crossref in order to help your references go further and aid discoverability of your content.
• #4: This is our mission at Crossref (slide) Over 16,000 member organizations 40 staff based in USA, UK, Ireland, France and Germany. 16 member board, cross section of international publishers Metadata store of over 100 million scholarly content items A DOI is just the start - We offer a wide array of services to ensure that scholarly research metadata is registered, linked, and distributed. We preserve the metadata we receive and make it available via our open APIs and Search.
• #5: Why it should be correct - so many people use it! Registering your content isn’t just about getting a persistent identifier for your work. It is about where your metadata goes after you register it with Crossref, and how many other organizations then use that metadata to find the content you publish. Because Crossref’s metadata is standardized and machine readable it is very useful to many organizations that make your content more discoverable here are a few examples.
• #6: it’s important that our metadata be accurate - accurate: the information needs to be the right information, misspelled author names or bad license URLs or bad DOI URLs do horrible things to our ecosystem. Authors - if you notice errors in the metadata of your article, then please do content the publisher and let them know they need to update their records with us, we cannot do that directly for you! complete: we need to collect all contributors for a work, their ORCID iDs as well as what shape their contributions took and what org. they are affiliated with. current: the metadata needs to be up to date, lots of metadata stands still but not all of it. URLs change (that’s why we are here), licenses evolve, newer initiatives like ORCID iDs can be added to an existing metadata set. ‘complete and ‘current’ metadata are things we need to focus on at Crossref as well, we want to make it easy for you to update your metadata, keep track of updates, and we need to collect or refine new metadata as we evolve.
• #7: When this paper was initially submitted to Crossref, no co-authors were listed in the metadata. This made things difficult for the co-author who was not able to get credit for the work she put in, because the service indexing the work used the Crossref metadata. We both contacted the publisher, and they were able to update this information to solve the problem. But you can see therefore why it’s important that the information is accurate.
• #9: Linked to Shayn’s blog post re: making corrections & additions via MM.
• #10: Information on lots of things that members want to do with their metadata.
• #11: One thing worth mentioning however, is that… People think Crossref members have a defined set of metadata and that our metadata is complete and fully comprehensive. But that is not exactly the case…
• #13: So I’m now quickly going to show you one of our new tools - Participation reports. A place where: You can see what metadata you are registering with Crossref You can track progress of your metadata You’re able to see how you measure up to other members Crossref members: Not always aware of what metadata they’re sending to Crossref Can see what’s missing and can fix the gaps Can track progress of their metadata in an easy and user-friendly way The reports may be accessed at https://www.crossref.org/members/prep/ . More information is available at https://www.crossref.org/education/metadata-stewardship/reports/participation-reports/
• #14: Here is an example of a member’s report - the Vietnam Association of Obstetrics & Gynacology. They are not registering any references yet, but when they do, these will be set to open. 9% of their content has ORCID IDs, and 100% has Text mining, License and Similarity Check URLs. 93% of their content also has abstracts deposited. They could improve their metadata records by adding references, funder registry IDs and funding award numbers for example. By viewing their report, the association can easily identify the metadata gaps in their record and what they can do to improve this.
• #15: Each item has a "more information" button that, when clicked, will display an explanation of each indicator with links to more information, including why that metadata is important and how it can be improved. You can also view the report by content type, selecting from a drop down list of content types available. Or view the metadata report for a specific title by typing into the search box which will provide a drop down list of titles to select from. On the right side of the report you can also choose between viewing the statistics for the current content items (published within the last 2 years, which is the default setting), backfile (content older than 2 years), or by all time. when adding a new metadata field, many members start with current content and work their way back as they are able. Not all fields will be populated for all titles - Content published in 1960 isn’t going to have an ORCID, for example, some types of publications may not have abstracts, or be funded, back issue content won’t have much funding detail the further back you go.
• #16: We want to help our members make their metadata like this!