To date, we have collected around 740 million events from 12 different source since we launched our Event Data service service in 2017. Each event is an online mention of the research associated with a DOI, either via the DOI directly or using the associated URL. However, we know that there is much more out there. Because of this, we would like to explore where we could expand.
We invite proposals to conduct a gap analysis for Event Data sources, looking at what we currently collect and seeing what more could be added.
We are delighted to announce the formation of a new Advisory Group to support us in improving preprint metadata. Preprints have grown in popularity over the last few years, with increasing focus brought by the need to rapidly disseminate knowledge in the midst of a global pandemic. We have supported metadata deposits for preprints under the content type ‘posted content’ since 2016, and members currently register a total of around 17,000 new preprints metadata records each month.
It is time to put the ‘R’ back into R&D.
The Crossref R&D team was originally created to focus on the kinds of research projects that have allowed Crossref to make transformational technology changes, launch innovative new services, and engage with entirely new constituencies. Some Illustrious projects that had their origins in the R&D group include:
DOI Content Negotiation Similarity Check (originally CrossCheck) ORCID (originally Author DOIs) Crossmark The Open Funder Registry The Crossref REST API Linked Clinical Trials Event Data Grant registration ROR And for each project that has graduated, there have been several that have not.
This announcement has been in the works for some time, but everything seems to take longer when there is a pandemic going on, including finding time and headspace to plan out our strategy for the next few years.
Over the last year or so we have had our heads down addressing how to scale our 20-yr-old system and operation – and adapting to new ways of working. But we’ve also spent time talking to people, forging alliances, looking ahead, and making plans.
We test a broad sample of DOIs to ensure resolution. For each journal crawled, a sample of DOIs that equals 5% of the total DOIs for the journal up to a maximum of 50 DOIs is selected. The selected DOIs span prefixes and issues.
The results are recorded in crawler reports, which you can access from the depositor report expanded view. If a title has been crawled, the last crawl date is shown in the appropriate column. Crawled DOIs that generate errors will appear as a bold link:
Click Last Crawl Date to view a crawler status report for a title:
The crawler status report lists the following:
Total DOIs: Total number of DOI names for the title in system on last crawl date
Checked: number of DOIs crawled
Confirmed: crawler found both DOI and article title on landing page
Semi-confirmed: crawler found either the DOI or the article title on the landing page
Not Confirmed: crawler did not find DOI nor article title on landing page
Bad: page contains known phrases indicating article is not available (for example, article not found, no longer available)
Login Page: crawler is prompted to log in, no article title or DOI
Exception: indicates error in crawler code
httpCode: resolution attempt results in error (such as 400, 403, 404, 500)
httpFailure: http server connection failed
Select each number to view details. Select re-crawl and enter an email address to crawl again.
Page owner: Isaac Farley | Last updated 2020-April-08