Latest blog posts
Martin Eve
2023 September 28

Feedback on Automatic Digital Preservation and Self-Healing DOIs

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.

...Find out more
Lucy Ofiesh
2023 September 27

2023 board election slate

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.

...Find out more
Ginny Hendricks
2023 September 12

News: Crossref and Retraction Watch

https://doi.org/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.

...Find out more
Amanda French
2023 September 07

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.

...Find out more
  • Menu
search

Documentation

Peer review

You can register peer review metadata and connect reviews to reviewed items via relationships.

When registering peer reviews, DO:

  • include a review title - if you don’t have a review-specific title convention, we recommend that you include “Review” (or your own term for review) as well as a revision and review number. For example, a review pattern of Review: title of article (Revision number/Review number) will be: Review: Analysis of the effects of bad metadata on discoverability (R2/RC3)
  • include reviewer information with the contributor section, including information about anonymous reviewers
  • include relevant stage, type, and recommendation metadata
  • include license information
  • include relationship metadata linking the review with the item being reviewed (relation type isReviewOf).

Do not:

  • include metadata specific to the reviewed item, like author and title - that is captured in the record of the reviewed item, which you supply via the isReviewof relationship

Other things to know:

  • references are not currently supported for peer review records but if someone cites your reviews, those citations will be included in our cited-by service

Review our Peer Review Markup Guide for XML and metadata help.

Page owner: Patricia Feeney   |   Last updated 2021-November-10