Latest blog posts
Martyn Rittman
2024 November 15

Research Integrity Roundtable 2024

For the third year in a row, Crossref hosted a roundtable on research integrity prior to the Frankfurt book fair. This year the event looked at Crossmark, our tool to display retractions and other post-publication updates to readers. Since the start of 2024, we have been carrying out a consultation on Crossmark, gathering feedback and input from a range of members. The roundtable discussion was a chance to check and refine some of the conclusions we’ve come to, and gather more suggestions on the way forward.

...Find out more
Dominika Tkaczyk
2024 November 06

How good is your matching?

In our previous blog post in this series, we explained why no metadata matching strategy can return perfect results. Thankfully, however, this does not mean that it’s impossible to know anything about the quality of matching. Indeed, we can (and should!) measure how close (or far) we are from achieving perfection with our matching. Read on to learn how this can be done! How about we start with a quiz? Imagine a database of scholarly metadata that needs to be enriched with identifiers, such as ORCIDs or ROR IDs.

...Find out more
Kornelia Korzec
2024 October 28

Update on the Resourcing Crossref for Future Sustainability research

We’re in year two of the Resourcing Crossref for Future Sustainability (RCFS) research. This report provides an update on progress to date, specifically on research we’ve conducted to better understand the impact of our fees and possible changes. Crossref is in a good financial position with our current fees, which haven’t increased in 20 years. This project is seeking to future-proof our fees by: Making fees more equitable Simplifying our complex fee schedule Rebalancing revenue sources In order to review all aspects of our fees, we’ve planned five projects to look into specific aspects of our current fees that may need to change to achieve the goals above.

...Find out more
Lucy Ofiesh
2024 September 24

Meet the candidates and vote in our 2024 Board elections

On behalf of the Nominating Committee, I’m pleased to share the slate of candidates for the 2024 board election. Each year we do an open call for board interest. This year, the Nominating Committee received 53 submissions from members worldwide to fill four open board seats. We maintain a balanced board of 8 large member seats and 8 small member seats. Size is determined based on the organization’s membership tier (small members fall in the $0-$1,650 tiers and large members in the $3,900 - $50,000 tiers).

...Find out more
  • Menu
search

Documentation

Introduction to peer reviews

Why register peer reviews

More of our members are keen to expose evidence of the integrity of the editorial process, such as peer review. Registering peer reviews means:

  • The metadata can provide relevant information about the reviews such as whether they were part of peer review or post-publication.
  • There is evidence of the contribution from reviewers.
  • These reviews are connected to the original work and other related objects.
  • Links to these documents persist over time for future generations.

This metadata may also support enrichment of scholarly discussion, reviewer accountability, publishing transparency, and analysis or research on peer reviews.

Obligations and limitations

  1. Members need to follow the peer review metadata best practices.
  2. All peer reviews must include relationship metadata linking the review with the item being reviewed.
  3. The item being reviewed must have a Crossref DOI.
  4. You can’t add components to peer review records.
  5. Crossmark is not currently supported for peer review records.
  6. You can only register peer reviews by direct deposit of XML, our helper tools do not currently support this record type.

Fees

In addition to annual membership dues, all records attract a one-time registration fee. For peer reviews, the fees are different if they are reviews of your own records, or for another member’s records. Read about the fees.

History

Our members asked for the flexibility to register content for the reviews and discussions of scholarly content which they publish, so we’ve extended our infrastructure to support members who post them. We support a whole host of outputs made publicly available from the peer review history, as they vary greatly based on journal. This may include referee reports, decision letter, and author response. The overall set may include outputs from the initial submission only or those from all subsequent rounds of revisions. We also allow members to register content made up of discussions surrounding a journal article after it was published (e.g. post-publication reviews).

The following organizations consulted with us on the design and/or development of the peer review service:

  • Publons
  • PeerJ
  • F1000 Research
  • eLife
  • BioMedCentral
  • BMJ
  • Copernicus
  • EMBO
  • Nature Communications

For full instructions and XML examples please visit our support article where you can also raise a ticket for any questions.

If you have questions please consult other users on our forum at community.crossref.org or open a ticket with our technical support team where we’ll reply within a few days.

Page owner: Isaac Farley   |   Last updated 2022-February-04