“Considering the wide range of communities and interests that our four speakers represented, there was a remarkable and reassuring level of agreement between them about what’s important, what’s working, and what needs to change. As a PID person myself, I was delighted that persistent identifiers came up (ahem) persistently as key to a robust and open research infrastructure. While there is certainly more work needed to harness their full potential, PIDs like DOIs and ORCID iDs are already enabling interoperability between the many systems and services researchers and their organizations are using. There was also agreement among the speakers that more work is needed to increase community awareness, adoption, and use of PIDs, and of the research infrastructure in general. Fragmentation of the infrastructure is an issue here as it’s virtually impossible for anyone to keep up with the myriad of researcher tools and services out there. Bianca Kramer and Jeroen Bosman’s ongoing work to track these tools makes for a scary read, and the thought of finding a way to make all of them sustainable is even scarier! But at the same time, as Karin pointed out, we need to ensure that the tools we do choose to use and support meet the needs of researchers across all disciplines — and that doesn’t mean just retrofitting tools that were originally developed for scientists, it means developing tools that take the requirements of different disciplines into account from the start….”
“So why should this highly successful national-level policy that could effectively achieve the 100% Open Access objective be an obstacle to a pragmatic approach to Open Science? Because it’s a Green Open Access policy based on the deposit of accepted manuscripts in institutional repositories with widespread embargo periods. Because despite the current and future progresses in enhancing the visibility and discoverability of repository contents, the canonical way to reach a publication for an external stakeholder with little knowledge about the complex scholarly communications landscape (eg Industry) remains and will remain the DOI issued by the publisher. Because a Green OA-based policy does not open the publications sitting behind those DOIs. And because the amount of effort involved in the implementation of the HEFCE policy as it is designed right now is so huge that research libraries lack the physical resources to adopt any other complementary Open Access implementation policy.
Enter Plan S with its highly pragmatic approach to Open Access implementation. Originally strongly based on Gold Open Access, APC payments where needed and deals with the publishers to address the double-dipping issue around hybrid journals, it’s only after considerable pressure has been exerted by the Green Open Access lobby that the zero-embargo Green Open Access policy has found a place in the Plan S implementation guidelines. But with the current scramble for ‘transformative’ deals that will allow most hybrid journals to become eligible under Plan S requirements, the size of the institutional Gold Open Access output pie will only grow in forthcoming years….”
“The Crossref API can be used for locating the full text of published articles and preprints for the purpose of text mining.
Crossref members who have have subscription-access content and who want to make some of their content available for text mining need to take the following steps.
The Crossref schema supports the NISO Access and License Indicators ALI section, and, normally, the free_to_read functionality of ALI would be the recommended mechanism for indicating that content is available for free (e.g. “gratis”, not “open”). However, the ALI free_to_read element is not currently exposed through our REST API filters.
But we have defined a workaround that allows members to both register the ALI free_to_read element and an equivalent assertion that will work with the REST API and which will allow researchers to locate content that has been flagged as “free.”…”
“Research Square is a preprint platform that allows you to share your work early, gain feedback and improve your manuscript, and discover emerging science all in one place….
Research Square features all the characteristics of a traditional preprint server, but with some notable differences:
All preprints are displayed in HTML. The full text is indexed and machine-readable so that it is more discoverable by search engines.
Authors can demonstrate to the community they meet established standards in scientific reporting by purchasing assessments in integrity, reproducibility, and statistical rigor. Badge icons are displayed on their article page for assessments they pass. Learn more about our badges here.
Video summaries can be added to the article page to communicate your research to a broader audience.
Readers can comment on a paper using our custom-built commenting system or the hypothes.is annotation tool.
Figures are rendered using a lightbox that allows for zooming and downloading. …”
“On submission to the [Bulletin of the World Health Organization], all research manuscripts relevant to the coronavirus emergency will be assigned a digital object identifier and posted online in the “COVID-19 Open” collection within 24 hours while undergoing peer review. The data in these papers will thus be attributed to the authors while being freely available for unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited as indicated by the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Intergovernmental Organizations license (CC BY IGO 3.0). Should a paper be accepted by the Bulletin following peer review, this open access review period will be reported in the final publication. If a paper does not meet the journal’s requirements after peer review, authors will be free to seek publication elsewhere. If the authors of any paper posted with the Bulletin in this context are unable to obtain acceptance with a suitable journal, WHO undertakes to publish these papers in its institutional repository as citable working papers, independently of the Bulletin. The choice of a pre-print platform remains the sole discretion of the author. This early access to research manuscripts at WHO builds on examples of other rapid information access platforms such as PROMED and F1000Research….”
“Europe PMC has been indexing preprints since 2018, hosting content initially from bioRxiv, ChemRxiv, PeerJ Preprints, F1000, and subsequently adding content from medRxiv and Beilstein Archives. Europe PMC now indexes over 100K preprints. Through a recent redesign of the search functionality, Europe PMC highlights more clearly search results that are preprints (versus research articles or literature reviews, for example)….
However, an open question has been how to deal with the many different versions of a preprint appearing in the search results. The aim was to identify all versions of a preprint, link them together and offer a collapsed aggregate of these versions to users. To this end, Europe PMC has improved the presentation of preprint versions and displays only the most recent version of a preprint in the search result page….
Europe PMC links preprint versions based on their DOIs, allowing the user to access previous versions along with the edits, comments and citations associated with each specific version. From each preprint version the user can also link to the peer-reviewed, published version of the article if it is available in Europe PMC….”
“The University of Cambridge research repository (Apollo), uses ORCID IDs as a unique identifier for researchers. When a researcher submits a dataset to Apollo, a DOI is minted for the dataset through the DataCite service. By including the ORCID in the metadata submitted to DataCite, DataCite then populates the ORCID registry entry for the researcher (with their permission) with information about the dataset, using an ‘auto-update’ feature.
The result is that a link is created between the researcher and their data, through the ORCID ID identifying the researcher, and the DOI for the data assigned by DataCite. The persistent identifiers are used to connect researchers and their achievements, improving visibility and discoverability across different systems. The workflow reduces duplication of effort in entering information and avoids input or identification errors….”
“January of 2020 marks 20 years since the incorporation of Crossref. This platinum anniversary is an opportune time to look back and take stock of how far the organization has come in the intervening decades, and ponder where its strengths and achievements might lead it in the future. The visionary publishers who formed Crossref, and the staff who have run it from the start, should feel extremely proud of the organization they created – not least for its success as technical infrastructure, but also, arguably, as the scholarly information community’s most extensive, impactful, and stable consortium. That said, it is unlikely that the founding publishers envisioned at the outset the diverse, multi-stakeholder federation that the organization is today. As an early staff member myself, and now a member of the Board, I share a sense of pride in how far Crossref has come, and care deeply about its future….
By dint of its vast coverage of scholarly literature, along with its ability both (1) to associate ever richer metadata with any DOI-identified object and (2) to convene – or rally – the scholarly information community around new initiatives, practices, and standards, Crossref is in a truly unique position to “scaffold” enriched representations of digital scholarship. That is, Crossref is better placed than any other organization to support community-driven efforts to improve discovery and navigation, and our ability to capture and assess contributions to science and scholarship. The pressing questions at this juncture, to my mind, are: will Crossref rise to this opportunity; who gets to decide whether or not it does; and do the governance and sustainability models it started with 20 years ago still serve the organization today, and into the future? …
I would go so far as to say that Crossref’s success was, if indirectly, a significant forcing function for open access as well. The experience of hitting a paywall after clicking on a DOI-powered link was and is a source of significant frustration for readers and libraries, especially when also encountering high fees for access to individual articles. The lucrative “article economy” envisioned in the 2000s never quite reached publishers’ expectations….
With the growth of open access, some of the larger and more progressive commercial publishers have pivoted on strategy, and are banking increasingly on their data, technology, and analytics businesses (see, for example, the 2019 SPARC Landscape Analysis authored by Claudio Aspesi). It behooves the leaders of today’s research institutions to explore fully the implications of commercial control of research data, analytics, and infrastructure, along with the potential for community-owned alternatives. The prospect of an open metadata commons for digital scholarship, and open infrastructure for computing over that data, may be less exciting for entities who intend to grow revenues from their technology and analytics products than it is for other publishers, because of how it might compete with their current and future offerings. It would be foolhardy to ignore this fact as Crossref’s membership, staff, and Board work together to help the organization realize its full promise….”
“Plaudit links researchers, identified by their ORCID, to research they endorse, identified by its DOI….
Because endorsements are publisher-independent and provided by known and trusted members of the academic community, they provide credibility for valuable research….
Plaudit is built on open infrastructure. We use permanent identifiers from ORCID and DOI, and endorsements are fed into CrossRef Event Data.
We’re open source, community-driven, and not for profit….”
Abstract: In this paper, we present COCI, the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations (http://opencitations.net/index/coci). COCI is the first open citation index created by OpenCitations, in which we have applied the concept of citations as first-class data entities, and it contains more than 445 million DOI-to-DOI citation links derived from the data available in Crossref. These citations are described using the resource description framework by means of the newly extended version of the OpenCitations Data Model (OCDM). We introduce the workflow we have developed for creating these data, and also show the additional services that facilitate the access to and querying of these data via different access points: a SPARQL endpoint, a REST API, bulk downloads, Web interfaces, and direct access to the citations via HTTP content negotiation. Finally, we present statistics regarding the use of COCI citation data, and we introduce several projects that have already started to use COCI data for different purposes.