Blog

Crossref goes live in tandem with DataCite to push both publication and dataset information to ORCID profiles automatically. All organisations that deposit ORCID iDs with Crossref and/or DataCite will see this information going further, automatically updating author records. 

In the next few weeks, authors with an ORCID iD will be able to have Crossref automatically push information about their published work to their ORCID record. It’s something that ORCID users have been asking for and we’re pleased to be the first to develop the integration. 230 publishers already include ORCID iDs in their metadata deposits with us, and currently there are 248,000 DOIs that include ORCID iDs.

Publishers, researchers, funders, institutions and technology providers are all interested in better understanding how scholarly research is used. Scholarly content has always been discussed by scholars outside the formal literature and by others beyond the academic community. We need a way to monitor and distribute this valuable information.

photo credit Summary You can use a new Crossref API to query all sorts of interesting things about who funded the research behind the content Crossref members publish. Background Back in May 2013 we launched Crossref’s FundRef service. It can be summarized like this: Crossref keeps and manages a canonical list of Funder Names (ephemeral) and associated identifiers (persistent). We encourage our members (or anybody, really- the list is available under A CC-Zero license waiver) to use this list for collecting information on who funded the research behind the content that our members publish.

[ Crossref Labs loves to be the last to jump on an internet trend, so what better than than to combine the Doge meme with altmetrics? Note: The API calls below have been superceeded with the development of the Event Data project. See the latest API documentation for equivalent functionality Want to know how many times a Crossref DOI is cited by the Wikipedia? http://det.labs.crossref.org/works/doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0086859 Or how many times one has been mentioned in Europe PubMed Central?

The South Park movie , “Bigger, Longer & Uncut” has a DOI: a) http://dx.doi.org/10.5240/B1FA-0EEC-C316-3316-3A73-L So does the pornographic movie, “Young Sex Crazed Nurses”: b) http://dx.doi.org/10.5240/4CF3-57AB-2481-651D-D53D-Q And the following DOI points to a fake article on a “Google-Based Alien Detector”: c) http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.93964 And the following DOI refers to an infamous fake article on literary theory: d) http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/466856 This scholarly article discusses the entirely fictitious Australian “Drop Bear”: e) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2012.731307 The following two DOIs point to the same article- the first DOI points to the final author version, and the second DOI points to the final published version:

You can now easily search for publications and add them to your ORCID profile in the new beta of Crossref Metadata Search (CRMDS). The user interface is pretty self-explanatory, but if you want to read about it before trying it, here is a summary of how it works. When you go to to CRMDS, you will see that there is now a small ORCID sign-in button on the top right-hand side of the screen.

OCLC has published a report (PDF) identifying some requirements for what they call a “Cooperative Identities Hub”. A quick glance through it seems to show that the use cases focus on what we are calling the “Knowledge Discovery” use cases. As I mentioned in my interview with Martin Fenner, there is also a category of “authentication” use cases that I think needs to be addressed by a contributor identifier system. Still, this is a good report that highlights many of the complexities that an identifier system needs to address.

Martin Fenner continues his interest in the subject of author identifiers. He recently posted an online poll asking people some specific questions about how they would like to see an author identifier implemented.* The results of the poll are in and, though the sample was very small, the results are interesting. The responses are both gratifying -there seems to be a general belief that Crossref has a roll to play here- and perplexing -most think the identifier needs to identify other “contributors” to the scholarly communications process- yet there seems to be a preference for the moniker “digital author identifier”.

Discussions around “contributor Ids” (aka “Author ID, Researcher ID, etc.) seem to be becoming quite popular. In the interview that I pointed to in my last post, I mentioned that Crossref has been talking with a group of researchers who were very interested in creating some sort of authenticated contributor ID as a mechanism for controlling who gets trusted access to sensitive genome-wide aggregate genotype data. Well, I’m delighted to say that said group of researchers(at the GEN2PHEN project) have created a “Researcher Identification Primer” website in which they outline the many use-cases and issues around creating a mechanism for unambiguously identifying and/or authenticating researchers.