Latest blog posts
Isaac Farley
2021 March 08

Stepping up our deposit processing game

Some of you who have submitted content to us during the first two months of 2021 may have experienced content registration delays. We noticed; you did, too. The time between us receiving XML from members, to the content being registered with us and the DOI resolving to the correct resolution URL, is usually a matter of minutes. Some submissions take longer - for example, book registrations with large reference lists, or very large files from larger publishers can take up to 24 to 48 hours to process.

...Find out more
Vanessa Fairhurst
2021 February 11

Discuss all things metadata in our new community forum

TL;DR: We have a Community Forum (yay!), you can come and join it here: community.crossref.org. Community is fundamental to us at Crossref, we wouldn’t be where we are or achieve the great things we do without the involvement of you, our diverse and engaged members and users. Crossref was founded as a collaboration of publishers with the shared goal of making links between research outputs easier, building a foundational infrastructure making research easier to find, cite, link, assess, and re-use.

...Find out more
Martyn Rittman
2021 February 01

Event Data: A Plan of Action

Event Data uncovers links between Crossref-registered DOIs and diverse places where they are mentioned across the internet. Whereas a citation links one research article to another, events are a way to create links to locations such as news articles, data sets, Wikipedia entries, and social media mentions. We’ve collected events for several years and make them openly available via an API for anyone to access, as well as creating open logs of how we found each event.

...Find out more
Jennifer Kemp
2021 January 19

New public data file: 120+ million metadata records

2020 wasn’t all bad. In April of last year, we released our first public data file. Though Crossref metadata is always openly available––and our board recently cemented this by voting to adopt the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI)––we’ve decided to release an updated file. This will provide a more efficient way to get such a large volume of records. The file (JSON records, 102.6GB) is now available, with thanks once again to Academic Torrents.

...Find out more
  • Menu
search

Documentation

Peer reviews markup guide

Prior learning: Introduction to peer reviews

This page gives markup examples for members registering peer reviews by direct deposit of XML. It is not currently possible to register the peer reviews content type using one of our helper tools.

Getting started with registering peer reviews

Registration of peer reviews is supported as of schema version 4.4.1. Peer reviews include referee reports, decision letters, and author responses. You may also register post-publication reviews using our peer review content type.

Peer review metadata includes a number of review-specific elements. Many are optional to accommodate differences in review practices, but please include all elements relevant to your reviews when submitting your metadata records.

Our schema includes support for the following fields:

  • contributor, to capture reviewer name and role, choose from:
    • reviewer
    • review-assistant
    • stats-reviewer
    • reviewer-external
    • reader
    • translator
    • anonymous
  • title
  • review_date
  • institution
  • competing_interest_statement
  • running_number
  • license data
  • relations
  • stage
  • type
  • recommendation
  • revision-round
  • language

Note that all reviews must include relationship metadata linking the review with the item being reviewed. Learn more about obligations and limitations for peer review registration.

Element Description Limits
contributor, includes person_name or anonymous Captures reviewer name and role. If anonymous, must capture as <anonymous/>.
Peer review roles are: reviewer, review-assistant, stats-reviewer, reviewer-external, reader, translator, author, editor		 optional
title Title of review. If you don’t have a review-specific title convention, we recommend that you include Review (or member’s own term for review) in your peer review registration, 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)		 required
review_date Date of review, including month, day, year year is required
institution Organization (member or other) submitting the peer review, strongly advised if submitter differs from publisher of item being reviewed optional, may include up to 5
competing_interest_statement Competing interest statement provided by review author during review process optional
running_number Internal number/identifier used to identify specific review optional
license data Text or data mining license info optional
relations Relate review to item being reviewed through relationships - must supply the DOI of item being reviewed as an inter-work relation with review type isReviewOf required

Some metadata is captured as attributes with specific enumerated values:

Attributes Description Limits
stage Options are pre-publication and post-publication optional
type Types of report include: referee-report, editor-report, author-comment, community-comment, aggregate, recommendation optional
recommendation Values are: major-revision, minor-revision, reject, reject-with-resubmit, accept optional
revision-round Revision round number, first submission is defined as revision round 0 optional
language Language of review optional

The types are refer to the following categories of peer reviews:

  • referee-report: also commonly known as a reviewer report - comments provided by someone who has been verified as an expert in the field of the work, usually invited by an editor. Note that we treat the terms reviewer and referee as interchangeable.
  • editor-report: comments by an editor representing the journal or platform where the work is submitted. It might contain feedback on other peer reviews or a decision on whether to accept the work for publication.
  • author-comment: a response by one or more authors to peer review reports on their work.
  • community-comment: comments made on a work from the community at large. These are usually part of a public call for reviews, rather than personally invited.
  • aggregate: a summary of a review process, for example collating the responses of several referees and/or editors.
  • recommendation: Reporting an editorial decision on a peer review with one of the values: major-revision, minor-revision, reject, reject-with-resubmit, accept.

Example of connecting a review to the reviewed item through relations

<program xmlns="https://www.crossref.org/relations.xsd">
   <related_item>
      <description>Referee report of Treatment of plaque psoriasis with an ointment
formulation of the Janus kinase inhibitor, tofacitinib: a Phase 2b randomized
clinical trial</description>
      <inter_work_relation relationship-type="isReviewOf" identifier-type="doi"
>10.1186/s12895-016-0051-4</inter_work_relation>
   </related_item>
</program>

Example of a complete review

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <doi_batch xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.crossref.org/schema/4.4.2 http://www.crossref.org/schema/crossref4.4.2.xsd"
xmlns="http://www.crossref.org/schema/4.4.2" version="4.4.2">
  	<head>
     	<doi_batch_id>20170807</doi_batch_id>
     	<timestamp>2017080715731</timestamp>
     	<depositor>
       	<depositor_name>Crossref</depositor_name>
       	<email_address>support@crossref.org</email_address>
     	</depositor>
     	<registrant>Crossref</registrant>
  	</head>
  	<body>
     	<peer_review stage="pre-publication" revision-round="1" recommendation="accept">
         	<contributors>
           	<person_name contributor_role="reviewer" sequence="first">
              	<given_name>Wilson</given_name>
              	<surname>Liao</surname>
           	</person_name>
         	</contributors>
         	<titles>
            	<title>Review: Treatment of plaque psoriasis with an ointment formulation of the Januskinase inhibitor, tofacitinib: a Phase 2b randomized clinical trial. V1</title>
         	</titles>
         	<review_date>
            	<month>08</month>
            	<day>19</day>
            	<year>2016</year>
         	</review_date>
         	<competing_interest_statement> There were no competing interests</competing_interest_statement>
         	<running_number>RC1 </running_number>
         	<program xmlns="http://www.crossref.org/relations.xsd">
            	<related_item>
              	<description>Referee report of Treatment of plaque psoriasis with an ointment formulation of the Janus kinase inhibitor, tofacitinib: a Phase 2b randomized clinical trial</description>
              	<inter_work_relation relationship-type="isReviewOf" identifier-type="doi"
>10.1186/s12895-016-0051-4 </inter_work_relation>
            	</related_item>
         	</program>
         	<doi_data>
            	<doi>10.5555/abc123</doi>
            	<resource>https://www.example.org/openpeerreview/art%3A10.1186%2Fs12895-016-0051-4/12895_2016_51_ReviewerReport_V2_R1.pdf</resource>
         	</doi_data>
     	</peer_review>
   	</body>
   </doi_batch>

Page owner: Rachael Lammey   |   Last updated 2020-April-08