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 resesarch they are looking at has updates by clicking the Crossmark logo.
We’re happy to note that this month, we are marking five years since Crossref launched its Grant Linking System. The Grant Linking System (GLS) started life as a joint community effort to create ‘grant identifiers’ and support the needs of funders in the scholarly communications infrastructure.
The system includes a funder-designed metadata schema and a unique link for each award which enables connections with millions of research outputs, better reporting on the research and outcomes of funding, and a contribution to open science infrastructure.
In our previous blog post about metadata matching, we discussed what it is and why we need it (tl;dr: to discover more relationships within the scholarly record). Here, we will describe some basic matching-related terminology and the components of a matching process. We will also pose some typical product questions to consider when developing or integrating matching solutions.
Basic terminology Metadata matching is a high-level concept, with many different problems falling into this category.
Update 2024-07-01: This post is based on an interview with Euan Adie, founder and director of Overton._
What is Overton? Overton is a big database of government policy documents, also including sources like intergovernmental organizations, think tanks, and big NGOs and in general anyone who’s trying to influence a government policy maker. What we’re interested in is basically, taking all the good parts of the scholarly record and applying some of that to the policy world.
The Metadata Manager tool is in beta and contains many bugs. It’s being deprecated at the end of 2021. We recommend using the web deposit tool as an alternative, or the OJS plugin if your content is hosted on the OJS platform from PKP.
The Review selection provides a condensed view of all the metadata you’ve provided in the form, so you can check it before submitting the record for deposit. Click Continue at the top of the form, and select Review. You can also Review All submissions on the To deposit screen before submitting the deposit.
Submitting a deposit
When you have finished adding article metadata and would like to deposit, click Continue from the article form, and select Add to deposit.
You can also do this from the Record List - select the article(s) you would like to deposit by checking the box to the left of the article title. You will then see the Action menu, and you can select Add to deposit. You can also move to, duplicate, and remove selected records using these buttons in the Action menu. If you select Remove for a record that has not been deposited, it will be erased from Metadata Manager. Records previously deposited will not be deleted from our system, only removed from the Metadata Manager workspace. If you created an article outside of a volume or issue, you can associate it with a volume or issue using Move to.
To submit your item(s) for deposit, click To deposit at the top of the screen. Please submit a maximum of 20 articles at a time. This will reduce the chance of an error with Metadata Manager.
Here, you can collect and review all your journal-specific records using Review all. The system will display any errors with a red flag by the respective record(s). You must correct these errors before you can deposit. If there are no errors, the Deposit button will be activated. Click Deposit and the system will immediately process your deposit request.
Page owner: Sara Bowman | Last updated 2022-July-22