On October 6 at ~14:00 UTC, our data centre outside of Boston, MA went down. This affected most of our network services- even ones not hosted in the data centre. The problem was that both of our primary and backup network connections went down at the same time. We’re not sure why yet. We are consulting with our network provider. It took us 2 hours to get our systems back online.
We are pleased to share the 2021 board election slate. Crossref’s Nominating Committee received over 60 submissions from members worldwide to fill five open board seats. It was a fantastic group of applicants and showed the strength of our membership community.
There are five seats open for election (three small, two large), and the Nominating Committee presents the following slate.
The 2021 slate Candidate organizations, in alphabetical order, for the Small category (three seats available):
Crossref Similarity Check news: iThenticate v2.0 ready for launch
Last year, we announced the upcoming launch of a new version of iThenticate, the product from Turnitin that powers Crossref Similarity Check. We know some of you have been waiting a long time for this upgrade and we are very happy to share with you that we are now ready to release it.
We will be rolling out this new version in stages, so not everyone will be able to upgrade to the new version immediately.
TL;DR We missed an error that led to resource resolution URLs of some 500,000+ records to be incorrectly updated. We have reverted the incorrect resolution URLs affected by this problem. And, we’re putting in place checks and changes in our processes to ensure this does not happen again.
How we got here Our technical support team was contacted in late June by Wiley about updating resolution URLs for their content. It’s a common request of our technical support team, one meant to make the URL update process more efficient, but this was a particularly large request.
These connections may consist of citations, or refer to publications which do not always exist as a single content item (its parts may be produced, curated, and published by different organizations and separate activities). Making these connections creates linked data, which is useful because it establishes associations and context.
We have also introduced other interlinking services that address specific types of relationships:
Components allow for the assignment of DOIs to the component parts of a publication (figures, tables, images) which may lead to their reuse.
Crossmark supports the connection of updates which have a material effect on the original work, for example: updates, corrections, and retractions.
Funding data supports identifying the organization that financially supports the research behind a specific publication.
Peer reviews support the host of outputs made publicly available about published scholarly content, for example: referee reports, decision letters, and author responses.
These and other services create relationships between metadata records; however, they share two characteristics that restrict their ability to define relationships:
Both items involved in a relationship must be identified by Crossref DOIs.
The types of relationships are dictated by the mission of the specific service.
The following modifications and new services developed in response to these two limitations:
Allow non-Crossref DOIs to be deposited in an item’s (article/chapter/paper) list of citations.
Support the creation of general typed relationships between items with a Crossref DOI, and other content items with a variety of identifiers.
We maintain an expansive set of relationship types to support the various content items that a research object, like a journal article, might link to. For data and software, we ask you to provide the following information:
identifier of the dataset/software
identifier type: DOI, Accession, PURL, ARK, URI, Other (additional identifier types are also accepted beyond those used for data or software, including ARXIV, ECLI, Handle, ISSN, ISBN, PMID, PMCID, and UUID)
relationship type: isSupplementedBy or references (use the former if it was generated as part of the research results)
description of dataset or software
We and DataCite both use this kind of linking. Data repositories which register their content with DataCite follow the same process and apply the same metadata tags. This means that we achieve direct data interoperability with links in the reverse direction (data and software repositories to journal articles).
The possible relationship types between content items can be as varied as the items themselves. We use a controlled vocabulary to define these relationships, in order to construct an orderly mapped network of content.
This is achieved by (i) an implicit approach where the relation type is a function of a specific service and is declared in the structure of the deposited XML, and (ii) in an explicit approach where the relation type is selected as a value within the deposited metadata.
Reference linking and Cited-by: implicitly creates cites and isCitedBy relationships between a content item and the items in its bibliography
Crossmark: explicit creation of update relations between an item and other items that materially affect it (for example, a retraction)
Funding data: implicit creation of isFundedBy and hasAward relationships between an item and the funding source that supported the underlying research
Linked clinical trials: implicit creation of a belongsTo relationship between and item and a registered clinical trial
Components: implicit creation of a isChildOf relationship between an item and its elemental parts that are assigned their own DOI (limited parent relation typing)
General typed relations: explicitly typed relation between an item with a Crossref DOI and an item with one of several possible identifiers.
Relationship types for associated research objects: intra-work (within a work)
Reciprocal relationship types
Relationship types for associated research objects: inter-work (between works)
Reciprocal relationship types
Related material, such as a protocol
Supplement, such as a dataset generated as part of research results
General typed relations
This service allows for the creation of a typed relationship between an item with a Crossref DOI and another content item. The other item may be represented by another Crossref DOI, a DOI from some other Registration Agency, or an item not identified with a DOI. When DOIs are used, the deposit process will fail if the DOI does not exist. Non-DOI identifiers are not verified.
When DOIs are used, a bidirectional relation is automatically created by us when a relation is created in the deposit of one item in a pair. The DOI with metadata creating the relation is said to be the claimant, the other item does not need to have its metadata directly contain the relationship.
Example: translated article
A single journal article is published in two languages with each being assigned its own DOI. In this example, both are published in the same journal. The original language instance has metadata that contains no indication of the translation instance. The alternative language instance includes in its metadata a relation to the original language instance. Here is a screenshot of the relevant section in the code. Please refer to the code snippet below to see it in context.
<title>Um artigo na língua original, que passa a ser o inglês</title>
<original_language_title language="en">An article in its original language which happens to be English</original_language_title>
<person_name sequence="first" contributor_role="author">
<description>Portuguese translation of an article</description>
<intra_work_relation relationship-type="isTranslationOf" identifier-type="doi">10.5555/original_language</intra_work_relation>
Example: book review
This example has a book review published as an article in the journal The Holocene. The article’s title, taken from the publisher’s site is “Book Review: Understanding the Earth system: compartments, processes and interactions” where this book has the DOI https://0-doi-org.lib.rivier.edu/10.1007/978-3-642-56843-5.
A: The current metadata for the review article gives no indication of the actual book being reviewed: