Rachael Lammey

Rachael Lammey

Director of Product

Biography

For 12 years, Rachael held several roles at Crossref before leaving to further her career in February 2023. Most recently, as Director of Product, she led Crossref’s product team, consulting with members, users, and other open scholarly infrastructure organisations to help focus the organisation’s priorities and deliver on our ambitious roadmap. Rachael worked her way up through editorial groups at a scholarly publisher before joining Crossref as a Product Manager in 2012. In that role she introduced ORCID Auto-update and oversaw improvements to Crossmark and Similarity Check. In the Community team she initiated our important partnership with the Public Knowledge Project and other organisations, grew adoption of preprints, grants, and data citation, and a brief strint in R&D saw her engage new technical and community iniiatives such as crowd-sourcing retrations and updates which led to the acquisition of the Retraction Watch database in 2023.

Topics

  • Metadata (and Crossref's REST API)
  • preprints
  • text mining
  • funding data
  • scholarly publishing
  • community-focused product development

Twitter

@rachaellammey

ORCID iD

0000-0001-5800-1434

Rachael Lammey's Latest Blog Posts

RORing ahead: using ROR in place of the Open Funder Registry

Rachael Lammey, Tuesday, Jan 30, 2024

In RORMetadataResearch Funders

Leave a comment

A few months ago we announced our plan to deprecate our support for the Open Funder Registry in favour of using the ROR Registry to support both affiliation and funder use cases. The feedback we’ve had from the community has been positive and supports our members, service providers and metadata users who are already starting to move in this direction. We wanted to provide an update on work that’s underway to make this transition happen, and how you can get involved in working together with us on this.

News: Crossref and Retraction Watch

https://0-doi-org.lib.rivier.edu/10.13003/c23rw1d9 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.

Open Funder Registry to transition into Research Organization Registry (ROR)

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.

The more the merrier, or how more registered grants means more relationships with outputs

Dominika Tkaczyk, Wednesday, Feb 22, 2023

In GrantsContent RegistrationResearch Funders

Leave a comment

One of the main motivators for funders registering grants with Crossref is to simplify the process of research reporting with more automatic matching of research outputs to specific awards. In March 2022, we developed a simple approach for linking grants to research outputs and analysed how many such relationships could be established. In January 2023, we repeated this analysis to see how the situation changed within ten months. Interested? Read on!

ISR part three: Where does Crossref have the most impact on helping the community to assess the trustworthiness of the scholarly record?

Rachael Lammey, Monday, Oct 17, 2022

In Research IntegrityTrustworthinessProduct

Leave a comment

Ans: metadata and services are all underpinned by POSI. Leading into a blog post with a question always makes my brain jump ahead to answer that question with the simplest answer possible. I was a nightmare English Literature student. ‘Was Macbeth purely a villain?’ ‘No’. *leaves exam* Just like not giving one-word answers to exam questions, playing our role in the integrity of the scholarly record and helping our members enhance theirs takes thought, explanation, transparency, and work.

Read all of Rachael Lammey's posts »