Thank you to everyone who responded with feedback on the Op Cit proposal. This post clarifies, defends, and amends the original proposal in light of the responses that have been sent. We have endeavoured to respond to every point that was raised, either here or in the document comments themselves.
We strongly prefer for this to be developed in collaboration with CLOCKSS, LOCKSS, and/or Portico, i.e. through established preservation services that already have existing arrangements in place, are properly funded, and understand the problem space.
I’m pleased to share the 2023 board election slate. Crossref’s Nominating Committee received 87 submissions from members worldwide to fill seven open board seats.
We maintain a balance of eight large member seats and eight small member seats. A member’s size is determined based on the membership fee tier they pay. We look at how our total revenue is generated across the membership tiers and split it down the middle. Like last year, about half of our revenue came from members in the tiers $0 - $1,650, and the other half came from members in tiers $3,900 - $50,000.
Crossref acquires Retraction Watch data and opens it for the scientific community Agreement to combine and publicly distribute data about tens of thousands of retracted research papers, and grow the service together
12th September 2023 —– The Center for Scientific Integrity, the organisation behind the Retraction Watch blog and database, and Crossref, the global infrastructure underpinning research communications, both not-for-profits, announced today that the Retraction Watch database has been acquired by Crossref and made a public resource.
Today, we are announcing a long-term plan to deprecate the Open Funder Registry. For some time, we have understood that there is significant overlap between the Funder Registry and the Research Organization Registry (ROR), and funders and publishers have been asking us whether they should use Funder IDs or ROR IDs to identify funders. It has therefore become clear that merging the two registries will make workflows more efficient and less confusing for all concerned.
Email your API key(s) and your iThenticate v2 account URL to firstname.lastname@example.org and the team at eJournal Press will set up the integration for you.
If you are already using iThenticate with ScholarOne and are upgrading from iThenticate v1 to iThenticate v2, please email your API key(s) and your iThenticate v2 account URL to email@example.com, and the team at ScholarOne will make the change for you. Please put “Product Management” in the subject line of your email.
If you are a new subscriber to Similarity Check and you haven’t used iThenticate before, you don’t need to email the team at ScholarOne. Just enter your iThenticate API key(s) and your iThenticate v2 account URL into the iThenticate configuration page in ScholarOne.
The team at Scholastica will set up the integration for you. Give them your API key(s) and your iThenticate v2 account URL by filling out this form.
The team at Scholastica will also set up any exclusions for you, so in the form they’ll ask you which sort of content you want to exclude from displaying as a match.
Page owner: Kathleen Luschek | Last updated 2022-July-18