“A representative of Crossref has said that the not-for-profit scholarly communications organisation is expecting a rapid expansion in the number of research grants that are allocated unique identifiers to allow anyone to easily search for resulting papers or data.
Speaking at the annual conference of the European Association of Research Managers and Administrators on 15 April, Rachael Lammey, head of special programmes at Crossref, said the organisation had already labelled just under 17,000 grants with unique codes known as digital object identifiers….”
“Most are familiar with registering Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), a type of Persistent Identifier (PID), to create lasting records for online research outputs. Registering DOIs for journal articles and other scholarly content and adding DOI links to references when possible is one of the best steps publishers can take to support research linking and discovery. But publishers shouldn’t stop at creating DOIs for articles. There are many other PIDs to consider adding to article-level metadata to support research discovery, assessment, and reuse. Additional PIDs can also expand the potential reach of content outputs when included in metadata registered with discovery services like Crossref.
During the NISO Plus session “Linked Data and the Future of Information Sharing,” Christian Herzog, CEO of Dimensions, and Shelley Stall, Senior Director of Data Leadership at the American Geophysical Union, spoke to emerging PIDs for linking research outputs by not only the content referenced in them but also the scholars, institutions, and funders associated with them. Among the PIDs they said all publishers should consider adding to their metadata are:
ORCID identifiers for authors and their history of research contributions
Institutional IDs such as those developed by GRID, which is the seed data set for the community-led ROR open research organization identifier registry
Grant IDs and funder IDs, such as those in The Open Funder Registry…”
“When publishers speak about linked research and scholarship only in terms of the market transition to open access, it is an inherently limiting view of scholarly research. In this context, concern for the version of record reflects a business interest, not a scholarly value. As a stewardship strategy, insisting on only publisher-hosted versions of record does not align with a modern research workflow inclusive of multiple tools and potential repositories. Recently, a number of publishers have expressed the “version of record” concern with regards to the PlanS “Rights Retention Strategy.” Yet, as was pointed out in the response by cOAlition S, establishing and maintaining relationships to other versions of articles or research assets has already been shown to be successful in disciplinary and scholarly communities.
Whereas the published, printed version of the research article was once the authoritative source of research, new modes of publishing and the publishing of other research outputs (postprints, protocols, data, code, etc.) have made the term “version of record” all but irrelevant. The scholarly communications landscape has already moved into what Herbert Van de Sompel, Bianca Kramer, and Jeroen Bosman call a “record of versions,” where persistent identifiers (PIDs) enhance the discoverability and linking of research outputs regardless of where those outputs are housed….
The continued insistence on “version of record”—including using the VOR date instead of the issue date to calculate journal impact factors—is also a subtle attempt by some commercial publishers to continue to exert control over the entire scholarly communications ecosystem and to be seen as sole authorities or stewards of research publishing. Thus, there is a pressing need to shift the dialogue from a single “version of record” to a “record of versions” that encompasses multiple versions and outputs, and makes room for a more diverse and inclusive publishing environment….”
Abstract: In 2019 we became increasingly aware of authors at Imperial College London choosing to publish grey literature through local website PDF or full text hosting. Recognising the need to improve the institutional open access repository as a venue of choice to publish or co-publish grey literature, we developed a publishing model of identifiers (DOIs and ORCIDs) and metrics (indexing, citations and Altmetric coverage). Some of the incentives already existed in the repository but had not previously been explicitly communicated as benefits; whilst others required technical infrastructure development and scholarly communications education for authors. As of September 2020, a 206% increase in deposit of one type of grey literature has been observed on the previous full year, including Imperial’s influential COVID-19 reports.
“There are more than 25 million Open Access versions of otherwise “paywalled” scientific articles, however they are often not easy to find.
Open Access Helper for iOS & macOS is designed to help you get easy access to these documents, with a lot of help from some amazing APIs….
Open Access Helper is designed to make finding the best Open Access location easy. Whenever my app comes across a DOI, it will query the APIs of unpaywall.org & core.ac.uk to see if an Open Access copy is available elsewhere.
The App is free and Open Source and I have no intention to change that….”
“The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) announced today that their Voting Members have approved a new work item to update the 2008 Recommended Practice, NISO RP-8-2008, Journal Article Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group. A NISO Working Group is being set up, and work is expected to begin in early 2021.
Publication practices have changed rapidly since the publication of the original recommendations. For example, preprints have become much more important as a publication type in many disciplines, and publishers are increasingly experimenting with new ways to publish, update, and keep research alive. All of these versions of an article are important and citable, making the concept of a single ‘version of record’ less relevant. These additional processes to support public availability make the consistent assignment of DOIs to one or more versions challenging.
The NISO JAV working group will define a set of terms for each of the different versions of content that are published, as well as a recommendation for whether separate DOIs should be assigned to them. They will address questions such as: Should there be a single DOI for an article, regardless of version? Different DOIs for each version? How are the identifiers connected and used? How do we define a version? As with all NISO output, the group’s draft recommendations will be shared for public comment before publication….”
“Part of reimagining of the research ecosystem means the publication is not the only important output of research. What about the datasets unpinning the publications, the software and other outputs? What about getting credit for producing and sharing those outputs? A research data management policy was in its early stages of development at the CRG and my time with publications had come to an end. I said goodbye to ISA with a heavy heart and travelled deeper into the depths of the open infrastructure supporting data sharing.
I have now been working with DataCite for 2 years. I am the support manager, which means I spend time helping librarians with metadata problems and reporting bugs, as well as organizing meetings and writing documentation. I work with the community engagement team, the data community being the backbone of our organization.
DataCite is a DOI registration agency. I didn’t know much about DOIs when I started working for them, now maybe I know too much. A DOI (Digital Object Identifier) is a type of persistent identifier (PID). They are used to uniquely identify “stuff” for example: publications (Crossref DOIs), datasets (DataCite DOIs), researchers (ORCIDs) and research institutions (RoR). We sometimes joke, in a very nerdy way, about other types of things that could have identifiers. There is already a move to have them for conferences, samples and instruments. DOIs are always accompanied by metadata. Some basic examples of metadata would be the “title”, “publisher” and “date” of the content being shared.
We work primarily with repositories (some well known generalist repositories are Zenodo and Figshare) to assign DOIs to research outputs. Assigning a DOI and the accompanying metadata means that the research outputs in these repositories can be discovered, cited and tracked. It makes data FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). There is no doubt that data sharing and citation are an essential part of moving towards a better research ecosystem. But getting this to happen takes time and effort. It involves changing practices – like actually citing the underlying data in research articles – and much more work lies ahead. DataCite works primarily with nonprofit organizations, but partnerships with for-profits open up new possibilities. There is no good and evil in this church. We must strive for openness, trust and transparency, there is no time to waste….”
“A stakeholder group was therefore formed earlier this year, with representatives from all disciplines and sectors — funders, HEIs, infrastructure providers, libraries, publishers, researchers, research managers, and more. At an initial meeting of this group in April, participants discussed the five persistent identifiers (PIDs) that have been deemed high priority for improving access to UK research. These are ORCID iDs for people, Crossref and DataCite DOIs for outputs, Crossref grant DOIs, ROR identifiers for organisations, and RAiDs for projects. This was followed by five focus group meetings during May and June, each focused on one of the priority PIDs….”
“In a bid to boost the reach and reuse of scientific results, a group of scholarly publishers has pledged to make abstracts of research papers free to read in a cross-disciplinary repository.
Most abstracts are already available on journal websites or on scholarly databases such as PubMed, even if the papers themselves are behind paywalls. But this patchwork limits the reach and visibility of global research, says Ludo Waltman, deputy director of the Centre for Science and Technology Studies at Leiden University in the Netherlands, and coordinator of the initiative for open abstracts, called I4OA.
Publishers involved in I4OA have agreed to submit their article summaries to Crossref, an agency that registers scholarly papers’ unique digital object identifiers (DOIs). Crossref will make the abstracts available in a common format. So far, 52 publishers have signed up to the initiative, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the US National Academy of Sciences….”
“Today DataCite is proud to announce the launch of DataCite Commons, available at https://commons.datacite.org. DataCite Commons is a discovery service that enables simple searches while giving users a comprehensive overview of connections between entities in the research landscape. This means that DataCite members registering DOIs with us will have easier access to information about the use of their DOIs and can discover and track connections between their DOIs and other entities. DataCite Commons was developed as part of the EC-funded project Freya and will form the basis of new DataCite services….
We integrate with both the ORCID and ROR (Research Organization Registry) APIs to enable a search for (10 million) people and (100,000) organizations and to show the associated content. For funding, we take advantage of the inclusion of Crossref Funder IDs in ROR metadata. We combine these connections, showing a funder, research organization, or researcher not only their content but also the citations and views and downloads if available, together with aggregate statistics such as numbers by year or content type….”