Thank you to everyone who responded with feedback on the Op Cit proposal. This post clarifies, defends, and amends the original proposal in light of the responses that have been sent. We have endeavoured to respond to every point that was raised, either here or in the document comments themselves.
We strongly prefer for this to be developed in collaboration with CLOCKSS, LOCKSS, and/or Portico, i.e. through established preservation services that already have existing arrangements in place, are properly funded, and understand the problem space.
I’m pleased to share the 2023 board election slate. Crossref’s Nominating Committee received 87 submissions from members worldwide to fill seven open board seats.
We maintain a balance of eight large member seats and eight small member seats. A member’s size is determined based on the membership fee tier they pay. We look at how our total revenue is generated across the membership tiers and split it down the middle. Like last year, about half of our revenue came from members in the tiers $0 - $1,650, and the other half came from members in tiers $3,900 - $50,000.
Crossref acquires Retraction Watch data and opens it for the scientific community Agreement to combine and publicly distribute data about tens of thousands of retracted research papers, and grow the service together
12th September 2023 —– The Center for Scientific Integrity, the organisation behind the Retraction Watch blog and database, and Crossref, the global infrastructure underpinning research communications, both not-for-profits, announced today that the Retraction Watch database has been acquired by Crossref and made a public resource.
Today, we are announcing a long-term plan to deprecate the Open Funder Registry. For some time, we have understood that there is significant overlap between the Funder Registry and the Research Organization Registry (ROR), and funders and publishers have been asking us whether they should use Funder IDs or ROR IDs to identify funders. It has therefore become clear that merging the two registries will make workflows more efficient and less confusing for all concerned.
We test a broad sample of DOIs to ensure resolution. For each journal crawled, a sample of DOIs that equals 5% of the total DOIs for the journal up to a maximum of 50 DOIs is selected. The selected DOIs span prefixes and issues.
The results are recorded in crawler reports, which you can access from the depositor report expanded view. If a title has been crawled, the last crawl date is shown in the appropriate column. Crawled DOIs that generate errors will appear as a bold link:
Click Last Crawl Date to view a crawler status report for a title:
The crawler status report lists the following:
Total DOIs: Total number of DOI names for the title in system on last crawl date
Checked: number of DOIs crawled
Confirmed: crawler found both DOI and article title on landing page
Semi-confirmed: crawler found either the DOI or the article title on the landing page
Not Confirmed: crawler did not find DOI nor article title on landing page
Bad: page contains known phrases indicating article is not available (for example, article not found, no longer available)
Login Page: crawler is prompted to log in, no article title or DOI
Exception: indicates error in crawler code
httpCode: resolution attempt results in error (such as 400, 403, 404, 500)
httpFailure: http server connection failed
Select each number to view details. Select re-crawl and enter an email address to crawl again.
Page owner: Isaac Farley | Last updated 2020-April-08