Latest blog posts

2024 April 03

Testing times

One of the challenges that we face in Labs and Research at Crossref is that, as we prototype various tools, we need the community to be able to test them. Often, this involves asking for deposit to a different endpoint or changing the way that a platform works to incorporate a prototype. The problem is that our community is hugely varied in its technical capacity and level of ability when it comes to modifying their platform.

...Find out more

2024 March 18

Mending Chesterton's Fence: Open Source Decision-making

When each line of code is written it is surrounded by a sea of context: who in the community this is for, what problem we’re trying to solve, what technical assumptions we’re making, what we already tried but didn’t work, how much coffee we’ve had today. All of these have an effect on the software we write. By the time the next person looks at that code, some of that context will have evaporated.

...Find out more

2024 March 15

Credential Checking at Crossref

It turns out that one of the things that is really difficult at Crossref is checking whether a set of Crossref credentials has permission to act on a specific DOI prefix. This is the result of many legacy systems storing various mappings in various different software components, from our Content System through to our CRM. To this end, I wrote a basic application, credcheck, that will allow you to test a Crossref credential against an API.

...Find out more

2024 March 13

Subject codes, incomplete and unreliable, have got to go

Subject classifications have been available via the REST API for many years but have not been complete or reliable from the start and will soon be deprecated. dfdfd The subject metadata element was born out of a Labs experiment intended to enrich the metadata returned via Crossref Metadata Search with All Subject Journal Classification codes from Scopus. This feature was developed when the REST API was still fairly new, and we now recognize that the initial implementation worked its way into the service prematurely.

...Find out more

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