In our previous instalments of the blog series about matching (see part 1 and part 2), we explained what metadata matching is, why it is important and described its basic terminology. In this entry, we will discuss a few common beliefs about metadata matching that are often encountered when interacting with users, developers, integrators, and other stakeholders. Spoiler alert: we are calling them myths because these beliefs are not true! Read on to learn why.
We’ve just released an update to our participation report, which provides a view for our members into how they are each working towards best practices in open metadata. Prompted by some of the signatories and organizers of the Barcelona Declaration, which Crossref supports, and with the help of our friends at CWTS Leiden, we have fast-tracked the work to include an updated set of metadata best practices in participation reports for our members.
It’s been a while, here’s a metadata update and request for feedback In Spring 2023 we sent out a survey to our community with a goal of assessing what our priorities for metadata development should be - what projects are our community ready to support? Where is the greatest need? What are the roadblocks?
The intention was to help prioritize our metadata development work. There’s a lot we want to do, a lot our community needs from us, but we really want to make sure we’re focusing on the projects that will have the most immediate impact for now.
In the first half of this year we’ve been talking to our community about post-publication changes and Crossmark. When a piece of research is published it isn’t the end of the journey—it is read, reused, and sometimes modified. That’s why we run Crossmark, as a way to provide notifications of important changes to research made after publication. Readers can see if the research they are looking at has updates by clicking the Crossmark logo.
Learn more about conflicts and the conflict report. Conflicts are usually flagged upon deposit, but sometimes this doesn’t happen, creating a missed conflict.
A missed conflict may occur for several reasons:
Two DOIs are deposited for the same item, but the metadata is slightly different (DOI A deposited with an online publication date of 2011, DOI B deposited with a print publication date of 1972)
DOIs were deposited with a unique item number. Before 2008, DOIs containing unique item numbers (supplied in the <publisher_item> element) were not checked for conflicts.
The missed conflict report compares article titles across data for a specified journal or journals. To retrieve a missed conflict report for a title:
The missed conflict interface will pop up in a second window. Enter your email address in the appropriate field. Multiple title IDs can be included in a single request if needed
A report will be emailed to the email address you provided. This report lists all DOIs with identical article titles that have not been flagged as conflicts.
Page owner: Isaac Farley | Last updated 2024-July-22
icon at the far right of the title