Me encantará participar, gracias!!
We are sponsors of Crossref in Brazil.
Most sponsors make deposits via OJS and it works very well.
Those who make the deposit through “webDeposit” are already used to the platform and do not report any problems. What I’ve noticed are duplicate ORCIDs in the contributors list.
It would be nice if the new platform did this kind of verification to avoid duplicate ORCIDs.
Another very common mistake is that some people translate the “webDeposit” page to Portuguese using the Chrome plugin, which prevents a successful deposit.
I am a software developer, I would like to test the platform as soon as possible.
I am publisher, but my website does not support OJS, please mention other ways.
Web Deposit Form is the only fully supported manual metadata deposit tool as of now. But, we are working on developing a new manual deposit tool, as Sara mentioned in this post.
So, please do try using Web Deposit Form, and if you have feedback on what would make it easier, please leave it here.
Thank you for your information. Could you provide me with a direct link to Web Deposit Form?
I have never tried it before and had no idea how to reach it.
Hi @icsr . Thanks for following up and welcome to the community.
The web deposit form is available here: https://0-apps.crossref.org.libcat.lafayette.edu/webDeposit/
And, instructions for its user are available here: Web deposit form - Crossref
We use the OJS deposit (for our journal articles), it´s ok. And we´re beginning to use the Web Deposit form for other item types, it´s been easy.
But, at the Web Deposit form, to update or correct metadata of a previously registered DOI, we have to input all data again. We can make mistakes, and it gives us the impression we´re generating another DOI (and paying again), even if we´re not… So, forgive me if it´s too dull a suggestion to make, since I´m new to the WDf. But, would it be possible to have some “Edit” icon + filling the already registered DOI code, so to get to its registry and only modify the field metadata that require update or correction? Or there´s already a way of doing it?
Hi, I’m from Brazil and we encourage small editors to use MM.
Mainly to avoid editing XML that many do not do and mainly to implement metadata enrichment, which, even with OJS deposits are not complete, which prevented the use of other services, such as: Similarity check, Cited-by
Following the forum discussion, I thought of 3 important approaches for the new metadata editing platform.
- That addresses the fields and possibilities that the MM contemplated for the improvement/enrichment of metadata, which we started to plan in our work routines, such as:
editing and inserting additional metadata
Relations between metadata
among many others…
- Support New Infrastructures:
Support for languages in the form
For the new metadata plattform to have answers, give technical support and focus on best practices for working with metadata, we have to address it in the system itself, avoiding errors or need for changes, and especially that members learn with the platform.
When I used Web deposit form, it shows issue DOI but we have only article DOI for each article.
Even when I added article DOI, it was was showing as wrong doi.
Issue-level DOIs are optional. If you don’t have them, just leave the Issue DOI and Issue URL fields empty.
Broadly speaking, assuming you have recently published a new issue of your journal and you want to register DOIs for all articles in the issue, the steps to take to use the web deposit form are:
- Select the Journal data type
- Enter the Journal and Issue level metadata on the first page of the form. At minimum this includes: Journal title, abbreviated journal title, ISSN(s), and at least one publication year (print or online). If applicable, also enter issue number, volume number, and full publication dates.
[Journal DOI and Issue DOI are optional. If you don’t wish to deposit Journal-level and Issue-level DOIs, simply leave these fields as well as Journal URL and Issue URL empty. Keep in mind that, if you do deposit a Journal DOI, it refers to the journal as a whole, and therefore cannot change in future deposits]
- Select ‘Add Articles’
- On the second page of the form, enter the metadata for your first article (article title, authors, page numbers if available), the article DOI, and article URL
- Click ‘Add Another Article’
- Continue to enter article metadata, DOIs, and URLs until you’ve entered all articles for the given issue.
- Click ‘Finish’
- Enter your Crossref username and password, and your email address
- Click ‘Deposit’
Any thoughts of adding the database type to this web form? Would really simplify things. Will the database type xml batch submission work here?
Marc Gillespie • Biocurator
reactome.org • New York
Thanks so much for your feedback. I wanted to let you know that we are starting to look at ways to better support multilingual metadata (as well as translated content). There is a card on our Roadmap for multilingual metadata - we hope to add more details to that card soon.
I stumbled across the sentence “We’ll be focusing on creating a brand new Content Registration user interface that will eventually replace Metadata Manager, the Web Deposit form, and Simple Text Query.” in the blog post “Next steps for Content Registration”.
We are working with the Simple Text Query as a crucial tool in our workflow. If Simple Text Query was replaced we would probably need to make changes to our workflow. Are there already any more concrete plans about how and when the Simple Text Query will be replaced? That is, in which way will a future tool differ from the current copy/paste of a text file to a window?
It will be probably me to come up with the necessary changes to our workflow. Hence, I’d rather know sooner than later.
Thanks for your question, we know that Simple Text Query is an important content registration method for a large number of our members and we will keep the ability to deposit references in this way.
We’re currently working on an updated version of Simple Text Query, which is likely to launch in next few months but the functionality will remain the same. There isn’t a timeline for bringing it into the new content registration system, but if we do it will serve the same purpose: you will be able to deposit references separately to the rest of the metadata. The only change to your workflow should be that you need to visit a different part of our website. We’ll announce the changes here and on our blog, and there will be some overlap between the current and new versions.
Thank you. Actually, we use Simple Text Query only to retrieve DOIs for references for which the authors didn’t provide any. But if this functionality also remains the same, everything will be fine.
For our journal , the plugin of OJS is used for the purpose of deposit the content. Will this tool still work? Nevertheless, I am glad to try the tool you are developing.
does the method of resolve a conflict of DOIs be updated as well? or create another ways .
Mujtaba AT Ankush
Hi @Ankush - yes, the OJS plugin will continue to work to deposit your DOIs.
The method for resolving DOIs conflicts will remain the same for the time being.
Dear Sara (and All),
I don’t know if your request for beta-testers for the DOI help tool is still valid.
I just joined a few days ago the Crossref Community and I would like to participate.
As you asked, Fondazione Vasculab is exactly a small (no-profit) publishing company. We use in a mixed way the Web Deposit Form (WDF) as well as the Metadata Manager (MM) and we are slowly shifting to the automatic xml deposit for several DOIs together.
Our publishing workflow is extensively based on xml files and each issue and each article has its own xml source file. A wide choice of xslt style-sheets allows the xml processing for the management of the publishing procedures, for instance the quick output of pdfs of each paper as well as of the pdf of the issue of the magazine.
More interestingly for our relationship with Crossref, the xml based procedures write also a list of steps to be followed and the fields to be filled in the WDF and in the MM.
Actually, the same procedures allow the build of a valid xml deposit file, though this is still in progress and to be ameliorated.
As regards our experience with the WDF, we noted that something is happening and slowly changing in the capabilities of the Form and its user interface.
Anyway, the Form has several issues or ambiguities as below:
xml deposits allow the deposit of volume dois, while the WDF still does not offer this option.
the WDF will return a failure when a doi was already created and no change was made. This should be clearly stated, otherwise the submission result will not be effectively previewed. For instance, an issue deposit results into a failure if the doi and the resource are not changed and will give a success when they are omitted in the same condition and new articles are added. It seems that the change is seen as local to the structure (issue, article), but this should be clearly explained.
the date of the online publication is not clear: for instance, an issue 1 of Volume 5, Feb 1, 2020, has been finalized on Aug 3, 2021. Which date must be reported, Feb 1, 2020 or Aug 3, 2021 ? Note that many articles are already online in an Electronic Ahead of Print (EPAP) procedure
Authors can have more than an affiliation. Adding a new organization, the WDF does not make it clear which Author this organization will match to. It would be better to separate clearly each Author with his/her organizations, in order to avoid any confusion.
Copying and pasting an ORCID often an additional space is attached at the end. This generates a mistake both in the WDF as in the xml deposit. A script could check for this frequent typo error and propose its correction.
As regards our experience with the MM, maybe it is better organized, but much more slow than the WDF. Of course, as the MM will be dismissed, all improvements should be introduced in the new Web Tool.
-The intuitive user interface and its capabilities could be improved, avoiding useless operations.
Why have we to load a magazine, an issue or an article, searching for it ? It could be achieved automatically, loading all data from the existing archive, without asking anything, as it already happens when you search for an article. All data are instantaneously updated.
Search by DOI is unacceptably long and sometimes unsuccessful, while the search by name is very quick.
Sometimes duplicate items appear, especially for issues. If you try to delete one of them, this can delete all the issue content, unacceptable for a long still manual procedure.
There is a delay in the time of availability of dois in the MM, which adds to normal delay for WDF. Thus delay in MM is almost doubled. Is this due to a different database for metadata ?
Of course, good database design requires sectioning of data in several archives. However, they should be available soon after doi registration.
As regards the need of translating metadata, I think it should be absolutely avoided. The solution is to translate the user interface in several languages, while the hidden xml structure should be maintained in English.
I remain available for any help I can give for the new Web Tool.
Dr. Fausto Passariello
Fondazione Vasculab, Naples, Italy.
Editor in Chief of the
Journal of Theoretical and Applied Vascular Research (JTAVR)
Ola Shayn, vc sempre muito atencioso, muto obrigada por tudo hein. bom ve-lo por aqui
This would increase visibility tremendously for those of us, OJS users who already fill in metadata in English, in addition to the primary language. Unfortunately the existing multilingual metadata seems to be currently only for human consumption, as it’s not indexed nor deposited anywhere.