At the end of last year, we were excited to announce our renewed commitment to community and the launch of three cross-functional programs to guide and accelerate our work. We introduced this new approach to work towards better cross-team alignment, shared responsibility, improved communication and learning, and make more progress on the things members need.
This year, metadata development is one of our key priorities and we’re making a start with the release of version 5.4.0 of our input schema with some long-awaited changes. This is the first in what will be a series of metadata schema updates.
What is in this update?
Publication typing for citations
This is fairly simple; we’ve added a ‘type’ attribute to the citations members supply. This means you can identify a journal article citation as a journal article, but more importantly, you can identify a dataset, software, blog post, or other citation that may not have an identifier assigned to it. This makes it easier for the many thousands of metadata users to connect these citations to identifiers. We know many publishers, particularly journal publishers, do collect this information already and will consider making this change to deposit citation types with their records.
Every year we release metadata for the full corpus of records registered with us, which can be downloaded for free in a single compressed file. This is one way in which we fulfil our mission to make metadata freely and widely available. By including the metadata of over 165 million research outputs from over 20,000 members worldwide and making them available in a standard format, we streamline access to metadata about scholarly objects such as journal articles, books, conference papers, preprints, research grants, standards, datasets, reports, blogs, and more.
Today, we’re delighted to let you know that Crossref members can now use ROR IDs to identify funders in any place where you currently use Funder IDs in your metadata. Funder IDs remain available, but this change allows publishers, service providers, and funders to streamline workflows and introduce efficiencies by using a single open identifier for both researcher affiliations and funding organizations.
As you probably know, the Research Organization Registry (ROR) is a global, community-led, carefully curated registry of open persistent identifiers for research organisations, including funding organisations. It’s a joint initiative led by the California Digital Library, Datacite and Crossref launched in 2019 that fulfills the long-standing need for an open organisation identifier.
Nowadays we’re all trying to eat healthier, get fitter, be more mindful and stay in the now. You think you’re doing a good job — perhaps you’ve started a yoga class or got a book on mindfulness. And then, wham! Someone in your organization casually mentions they’re planning a platform migration. I can sense the panic from here.
While the [Holmes and Rahe Stress Scale] (https://www.stress.org/holmes-rahe-stress-inventory/) doesn’t include platform migration as one of the top ten most stressful life events, we hear from our members that it should probably be in there somewhere. There’s so much to think about and plan for - how do you know you’re choosing the right platform partners for the future? How can you be sure that your understanding of what they offer really matches what you need? Will it make it easier for your readers to access your content? What about delays? What if it all breaks on changeover day?
Gaaaaah!
With all that to think about, worrying about whether your DOIs will resolve and what the migration will mean for the quality of your Crossref metadata just seems like an unnecessary layer of stress. It is, however, very important to consider this - even before you start thinking about who your platform partners will be. The process of working through these things up front could help you make better decisions, and set you up for success with the project and into the future.
So, to help you plan ahead, we’ve created a [platform migration guide] (/service-providers/migrating-platforms/) that offers guidance on things like:
What to consider even before you start selecting a new service provider
Planning the change over process
The change over itself (and what that means for your URLs)
What you should do after the migration is complete
The guide gives advice on how to plan for what you really need right now, and what you’re going to need in the future. For example, what metadata are you going to want to register with us and share with the thousands of industry organizations that make use of the data? What other Crossref services might benefit you in the future? What different record types are in your publishing plans?
The guide also has a [handy checklist] (/education/member-setup/working-with-a-service-provider/checklist-for-platform-migration/) which you can include in your Request For Proposal documentation, to ensure that you’re asking the right questions of potential suppliers.
Once you’ve read the [platform migration guide] (/service-providers/migrating-platforms/), [let us know] (mailto:feedback@crossref.org) if there’s anything else you think we should add to it - we’re sure many of you have platform migration stories, and it’s good to share!