Crossref: The sustainable source of community-owned scholarly metadata

Hendricks, Ginny; Tkaczyk, Dominika; Lin, Jennifer; Surname, Bob

doi:10.1162/qss_a_00022

Cited by 114 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2 However, some large publishers, such as Elsevier, the American Chemical Society, and IEEE have not yet agreed to opening their lists of references. Thus, COCI’s only partially reflects the citation relationships of documents recorded in CrossRef, which now covers over 106 million records (Hendricks et al 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New sources of citation data have recently become available, such as Microsoft Academic, Dimensions, and the OpenCitations Index of CrossRef open DOI-to-DOI citations (COCI). Although these have been compared to the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS), Scopus, or Google Scholar, there is no systematic evidence of their differences across subject categories. In response, this paper investigates 3,073,351 citations found by these six data sources to 2,515 English-language highly-cited documents published in 2006 from 252 subject categories, expanding and updating the largest previous study. Google Scholar found 88% of all citations, many of which were not found by the other sources, and nearly all citations found by the remaining sources (89–94%). A similar pattern held within most subject categories. Microsoft Academic is the second largest overall (60% of all citations), including 82% of Scopus citations and 86% of WoS citations. In most categories, Microsoft Academic found more citations than Scopus and WoS (182 and 223 subject categories, respectively), but had coverage gaps in some areas, such as Physics and some Humanities categories. After Scopus, Dimensions is fourth largest (54% of all citations), including 84% of Scopus citations and 88% of WoS citations. It found more citations than Scopus in 36 categories, more than WoS in 185, and displays some coverage gaps, especially in the Humanities. Following WoS, COCI is the smallest, with 28% of all citations. Google Scholar is still the most comprehensive source. In many subject categories Microsoft Academic and Dimensions are good alternatives to Scopus and WoS in terms of coverage.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 It has minted 106 million DOIs for 13 types of documents, with journal publications and scholarly book representing the largest part of these (Hendricks et al. 2020 ). Himmelstein et al.…”

Section: Related Work On Preprint–publication Linkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They send potential preprint–publication matches to DOI registrants (e.g., the medRxiv maintainers) who are requested to diligently show the publication DOIs along with their preprints: ‘all preprints need to link to a resulting journal article when they are alerted by Crossref that one exists’ (Hendricks et al. 2020 , p. 418). However, a Crossref audit of preprint metadata acknowledged ‘incomplete member data’ as some publishers failed to ‘provide links to published articles in their metadata’ (Lin and Ram 2018 ).…”

Section: Related Work On Preprint–publication Linkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Day-to-day discovery of preprint–publication links

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preprints promote the open and fast communication of non-peer reviewed work. Once a preprint is published in a peer-reviewed venue, the preprint server updates its web page: a prominent hyperlink leading to the newly published work is added. Linking preprints to publications is of utmost importance as it provides readers with the latest version of a now certified work. Yet leading preprint servers fail to identify all existing preprint–publication links. This limitation calls for a more thorough approach to this critical information retrieval task: overlooking published evidence translates into partial and even inaccurate systematic reviews on health-related issues, for instance. We designed an algorithm leveraging the Crossref public and free source of bibliographic metadata to comb the literature for preprint–publication links. We tested it on a reference preprint set identified and curated for a living systematic review on interventions for preventing and treating COVID-19 performed by international collaboration: the COVID-NMA initiative (covid-nma.com). The reference set comprised 343 preprints, 121 of which appeared as a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. While the preprint servers identified 39.7% of the preprint–publication links, our linker identified 90.9% of the expected links with no clues taken from the preprint servers. The accuracy of the proposed linker is 91.5% on this reference set, with 90.9% sensitivity and 91.9% specificity. This is a 16.26% increase in accuracy compared to that of preprint servers. We release this software as supplementary material to foster its integration into preprint servers’ workflows and enhance a daily preprint–publication chase that is useful to all readers, including systematic reviewers. This preprint–publication linker currently provides day-to-day updates to the biomedical experts of the COVID-NMA initiative.

show abstract

“…The universities were queried in the affiliation field of Crossref by using their English names. The authors' affiliation information in the Crossref database is based on the Crossref member organizations and enrichment done by Crossref itself (Hendricks et al, 2020). No time restriction (limitation to publication dates/years) in collecting Crossref DOIs 4 https://api.mendeley.com/apidocs/docs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Journal publications, scholarly books, and conference proceedings represent the largest content in Crossref. The basic metadata in Crossref includes title, publication dates, authors, journal title, conference name, volume/issue number, author's affiliations and ORCID, abstracts and links to full text, funding metadata, license metadata, list of references, clinical trial numbers, figures and supplementary materials(Hendricks, et al, 2020). Affiliation data however is based on the input of the different member organizations -who register metadata along with the digital object identifier for their registered content -therefore there is no affiliation data for all Crossref records.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Online Readerships Offer Useful Assessment Tools? Discussion Around the Practical Applications of Mendeley Readership for Scholarly Assessment

Zahedi¹,

Costas

2020

SAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This methods report illustrates the relevance of Mendeley readership as a tool for research assessment. Readership indicators offer new possibilities to inform the evaluation of publications and outputs either poorly covered in citation indexes (e.g. non-English language outputs, Global South publications, Social sciences and humanities), or typically excluded from citation analysis (e.g. letters, editorial material, etc.). Mendeley readership can also inform the earlier impact of scientific outputs, as well as the impact among wider non-academic audiences. All these features are discussed in this report and the relevance of readership indicators to extend the concept of research impact beyond specific acts (e.g. citations) is highlighted. Best practical recommendations on how Mendeley readership can be used for assessment purposes are discussed. Policy highlights: • This paper illustrates practical possibilities of readership indicators for research evaluation. • Readership indicators inform impact of publications poorly covered in bibliometrics databases or excluded from citation analysis. • Readership indicators inform early impact and non-academic impact of publications. • Readership indicators can be used to inform, support, and complement (citation-based impact) decisions on research evaluation exercises.

show abstract

Crossref: The sustainable source of community-owned scholarly metadata

Cited by 114 publications

References 14 publications

Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations

Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations

Day-to-day discovery of preprint–publication links

Do Online Readerships Offer Useful Assessment Tools? Discussion Around the Practical Applications of Mendeley Readership for Scholarly Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About