Community Call on Crossref

Building, refining, and connecting: summary of our May 2026 community update

Rosa Morais Clark — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Our 2026 Community Update took place on 13 May. Two calls, one for the eastern and one for the western time zone, highlighted how our global community is growing, how we’re refining the metadata that supports trust in the scholarly record, and connecting records more effectively through our latest tools.

Operations, governance, and a growing membership

Our Chief Operating Officer, Lucy Ofiesh and Executive Director, Ed Pentz, opened each session with an update on operations and governance, starting with the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI). We adopted POSI in 2020. Recently, the Principles were updated by a group of adopters, following a community consultation, and four new principles were added: periodic review of purpose and community value; transparent operations as a distinct principle; refined guidance on financial reserves; and attention to volunteer labour and transition planning. Recordings and slides are also available.

Infrastructure organisations can use POSI to assess themselves and demonstrate to the community how they’re adhering to the principles, which support forkability, long-term sustainability, open assets, and transparent, community-led governance. We published a biannual report on how we measure up against them, so we’ll publish our next self-audit against the new set at the end of 2026.

Financially, we’re in good shape. With so many new members joining every month, our revenue grew 8% last year, while expenses came in 3% under budget, and Content Registration was up 13% year-on-year at the end of March, well above our long-term average of around 7%. We’ve used our operating surplus to build up and maintain a reserve fund of 12-months of operating expenses, which matters for long-term sustainability. We use additional surplus funds beyond our reserves to reinvest in our mission and community.

We had our call for board nominiations in May. Seven seats are up this year, one large and six small, and any member can stand. Voting runs for around five weeks, one vote per member, regardless of size. Last year, just 6% of members voted, and we’d like to see that increase. The call for expressions of interest is now closed for 2026, and candidates will be announced by our Nominating Committee in the coming months in advance of the election and annual meeting, which will be held on 22nd October 2026.

Robbykha Rosalien and Maryna Kovalyova from our membership team then took us through the membership picture. We’re now 25,000 organisational members from 167 countries, with around 51% based in Asia. The majority of our new members are universities, scholar-led publishers, societies, small journal publishers, and government agencies. We have help from 140 sponsoring organisations and 42 ambassadors, and we’re grateful for all the support they offer our members.

The metadata corpus and its use have grown alongside the community

Turning to new members, over 3,000 have joined from 142 countries since the last community update. 54% are from Asia, with Indonesia accounting for 17.5% of the total and India next at 9.5%. We continue to have members joining from the US and the UK, and we also have over 100 new members from Türkiye, with strong growth in Brazil and Pakistan as well.

January 2026 brought a major change with the introduction of a new fee tier for members with annual revenue or expenses (whichever is higher) of under USD 1,000. Since then, 40% of the new members joined under this new tier. 40% of our new members identify themselves as publishers and 40% as universities or scholarly organisations, with plenty of societies (13%), governmental agencies or NGOs (4%), and others, such as hospitals. The most popular publishing platform choice among the new members remains Open Journal Systems by PKP at 55%, with 30% saying they have no platform, and WordPress (4%) and Scholastica (2%) following. Notably, we’re working with PKP this year to help members transition to OJS 3.5, which supports richer metadata.

We also extended our Global Equitable Membership (GEM) program at the start of the year to include 18 additional countries. GEM offers Crossref membership and Content Registration without any fees. Since the last community update, we’ve gained our first members in Haiti, South Sudan, and Niger, and 20% of all independent members who have joined since then are GEM-eligible.

Introducing the Member Practices Working Group

Our Membership Director, Amanda Bartell, introduced our new Member Practices Working Group with a reminder of Crossref’s role in preserving the Integrity of the Scholarly Record (ISR). We’ve always aimed to keep barriers to membership as low as possible, because the best way to support a healthy scholarly ecosystem is to make metadata about published content as open and transparent as possible. That openness lets members demonstrate their practices through metadata, signalling trustworthiness to the scientific community as a whole, and when practices fall short, the metadata itself can surface those issues. Our member terms already make the importance of accurate metadata clear: if the community identifies inaccurate metadata, we can suspend or revoke membership. That is a last resort, and our first approach is always to contact the member, explain the problem, and work with them to get the metadata record corrected.

But what if the reports we receive from the community don’t relate to metadata, and instead to the member’s broader practices? This is an increasing issue, and it has been unclear how and when we should respond.

In consultation with our board, we updated our member terms last year and added an obligation for members to comply with a set of published member practices. The role of the working group is to draft this set of practices and provide clear guidelines on what we expect of Crossref members. In rare situations where issues can’t be resolved, the Member Practices will provide the basis for acting decisively, including suspending or revoking membership.

The Crossref Member Practices Working Group brings together differently sized members from different regions, metadata users, bibliometricians, and scholarly sleuths. Once drafted, we’ll take the Member Practices out for community consultation, with a board vote expected at their November meeting. It’s particularly important to us that the practices are achievable for all types of members, and we don’t want to create any extra barriers to entry or to continue membership for less experienced or less well-resourced members.

To seek feedback from the community on emerging themes, Amanda ran two live polls during the call. One of her questions was: for the records you register with Crossref, are you the journal owner, the nominated publisher, or a bit of both? 45% of respondents said a bit of both, with the journal owner as the next most popular response, and the nominated publisher after that. The second poll asked whether the phrase “nominated publisher” accurately describes what those of you in that role do. The result suggested it is broadly acceptable, though we’d still like to hear how you’d phrase it if not.

Metadata schema

Patricia Feeney and Helena Cousijn from our programs and services team walked us through a year of schema work and what’s coming next. Schema 5.4 was released in March 2025 with three key features: typed citations, version numbers, and preprint status.

Typed citations give members the chance to indicate in the metadata what type of citation it is, so when an article cites a dataset, it’s now possible to explicitly say so. So far 23 DOI prefixes are using typed citations, so adoption is starting, and we’d really like to see it grow. If this is something you think is useful for you, please take a look, or reach out, and we’ll help you get started.

Version numbers, which 25 DOI prefixes now use and mostly for preprints, let you indicate different versions. We’re not yet seeing much use for articles or other record types, which we’d like to encourage. Notably, when you’re registering new versions of the same record, there’s no separate content registration fee, as long as you include the relationship in the metadata.

Preprint status lets you indicate that a preprint has been retracted or withdrawn, for example.

Earlier this year, we added the ability to include grant DOIs in funding metadata. When you register metadata for any research output, you can now include the persistent identifier to indicate which grant funded the work. The number of grants registered as part of the Grant Linking System by our funder members grows (with now over 200,000 grant DOIs in existence). This dedicated new field provides an opportunity for members registering works to unambiguously identify the grants that funded the work. The grant DOI links to a full grant record, including funding type, project information, investigator details, funder and program/schema details, and institutional relationships.

We’re working on Schema 5.5. The main thing we know many of you have been waiting for is support for the CRediT taxonomy and its 14 contributor roles. We’re also enabling multiple roles for a single contributor, and within the Crossref vocabulary, which we still support, it will be possible to specify the corresponding author.

After 5.5 comes the update to our dedicated grant schema. Grant Schema 0.3.0 adds the ability to indicate that a grant was awarded to an institution (via a ROR affiliation ID), reflects that roles can change over time, and adds support for a persistent project identifiers, RAiD – a service that functions as a project identifier to indicate how a grant relates to one or more projects.

We’re also deprecating older schema versions. We’re supporting over 27 at the moment, which is too many and not helpful to members. The fundamental structures need updating, and we also need to tighten some of our requirements to obtain better and more complete metadata. We started the project at the end of last year, and we’ll be saying goodbye to a set of versions at the end of this year. Everyone using those versions has already been contacted, so if this concerns you, you should have heard from us. The project continues over the coming years, and we’ll work on deprecating other Schema 4 versions, so that by the end, we’ll only be supporting the different Schema 5 versions and the upcoming Schema 6. We’ll notify everyone impacted and let you know how to transition.

Once 5.5 and the grant schema are out, we’ll start working on remodelling contributor names, which is a really big project. A proposed model was circulated for feedback in May. The same update will also work on statements, currently for funding, acknowledgments, ethics, accessibility, AI use, data availability, copyright, and conflict of interest.

Tools and demos

Funder matching, rebuilt around ROR

Dominika Tkaczyk and Jason Portenoy from our technology and data science team gave an update on the Metadata Matching work, framed around the vision of the Research Nexus: a rich and open network of relationships connecting organisations, people, outputs, and activities within the scholarly record. First up for the project is funder matching, and Dominika and Jason took us through the new methodology and progress on implementing the work.

Funding metadata involves three main entities: funders, grants, and research outputs. Organisations are identified by Open Funder Registry (OFR) IDs or ROR IDs, and research grants and outputs have DOIs. These entities should be linked in order for provenance and attribution to be determined, which is important for evidence but also for things like research assessment and compliance.

The three entities: Funding and academic organisations→recipients are awarded grants→ repositories and publishers support outputs.

In practice, many of those relationships are missing when metadata is deposited. The new Crossref funder matching identifies the funding organisation from the name in the metadata and, when successful, inserts the correct organisation identifier, disambiguating the relation between the research output and its funder. Applying matching over the years has added around 2.8 million funder identifiers to records, shrinking the gap.

So why rebuild what we already have? Two reasons. We’re committed to supporting ROR more deeply across our services, and as part of that, we want to switch to ROR IDs as the main identifier for funders. Second, our current funder matching is part of our legacy system, which lacks transparency, thorough evaluation, or flexibility.

The new strategy is part of our metadata matching project. The core architecture is built, and the new strategy has been tested; we’re now adding features such as sending redeposits, with more testing later this quarter and a release aimed for around the middle of the year. After that, we’ll move on to a grant-matching workflow to link outputs to grant records where that link is missing.

They closed with a live demo covering four cases. Starting with a simple example of Wellcome, which matched cleanly because the input name matched the official organisation name exactly, they then moved on to more complex examples, showing increasing discrepancies between the input and the name variant in ROR, yet the strategy still resolved it. However, some names are not possible to match in this way, such as the “Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences,” which is a very generic name that many organisations might use as part of their structure. That matters too: the strategy recognises when no match should be returned, limiting the level of incorrect information that might be introduced into the metadata.

Data citations API endpoint

Martyn Rittman who heads up our Research Nexus development, and Panos Pandis from our technology team introduced the new data citations API endpoint. It exposes data citations from deposited metadata, with over 700,000 included so far. Among all the reference information we hold, individual data citations are difficult to pick out, and there’s a specific community interest in them, so we’ve put them together and made them available through a dedicated API.

Data citations can be included in two parts of a metadata record: references and relationships. We look for links to datasets registered with a Crossref DOI or a DataCite DOI. Documentation can be found here.

Through March 2026, we typically collected 400 to 600 data citations per day, with some variation, especially on weekends. The new endpoint is still in beta, and we invite feedback: is it useful, what would make it more useful, and what should we do next? Let us know on the forum.

Metadata Manager: new content types coming

Lena Stoll, who heads up our community trends program and Patrick Vale from technology took us through Metadata Manager. We retired the legacy interface at the end of last year and replaced it with a more modern and flexible helper tool for record registration. It’s already in use by an increasing number of members for grants and journal article records.

A recent addition is a search field, where you can enter the DOI of any supported record (currently a journal article or a grant) and edit it directly, if you have permissions. We’ve also added fields to the journal article registration form to include relationship metadata, which is key to building the Research Nexus.

Plenty more is coming. The new Metadata Manager will expand to support books and chapters, conference proceedings, reports, dissertations, and post-publication updates over the next few months. The interfaces follow a similar workflow: a page or two of work-level metadata, optionally chapter, or paper, or series metadata if applicable, a review step, and submission. We want to keep them as simple and usable as possible.

We hope that the post-publication update form will be welcomed by our members, as it will enable registration of retractions, corrections, and expressions of concern without any knowledge of XML. Lena and Patrick walked through a live demo of a retraction notice end-to-end. The system checks that the DOI being retracted exists, and any errors surface right away rather than later by email. We’re collecting feedback on the new tools on the forum.

The team also shared an update for institutions that use DSpace – its next version (version 10), will include a Crossref integration that lets you register Crossref metadata and DOIs automatically for content such as dissertations hosted in your DSpace repository.

Looking ahead

A new Service Providers Program

Madhura Amdekar shared our plans to launch a new version of the Crossref Service Providers Program later this year. Service providers are hosting platforms, manuscript submission systems, XML or metadata providers, and general publisher service organisations that work with our members to create, register, or display metadata on their behalf. They’re key partners in promoting metadata best practices, and we’re looking forward to collaborating with these organisations more closely. The program will not charge any fees; it will offer certification in two tiers, depending on the depth of integration with Crossref services.

We’d really like to hear from you: which service providers in this space would you like to see as part of the new program? Drop suggestions on the forum or get in touch with us directly.

Thanks to our speakers and to everyone who joined, asked questions, and voted in the polls. Recordings and slides are available, and the conversation continues on our community forum.

See you at the next one.

A summary of our Annual Meeting

Rosa Morais Clark — Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0000

The Crossref2024 annual meeting gathered our community for a packed agenda of updates, demos, and lively discussions on advancing our shared goals. The day was filled with insights and energy, from practical demos of Crossref’s latest API features to community reflections on the Research Nexus initiative and the Board elections.

Our Board elections are always the focal point of the Annual Meeting. We want to start reflecting on the day by congratulating our newly elected board members: Katharina Rieck from Austrian Science Fund (FWF), Lisa Schiff from California Digital Library, Aaron Wood from American Psychological Association, and Amanda Ward from Taylor and Francis, who will officially join (and re-join) in January 2025. Their diverse expertise and perspectives will undoubtedly bring fresh insights to Crossref’s ongoing mission.

The meeting started with a recap of our mission and priorities. Ed Pentz reiterated the Research Nexus vision of increasing transparency of the connections that make up the scholarly record and underpin the research ecosystem.

Crossref is dedicated to openness, community ownership, and a stable, accessible infrastructure that researchers, publishers, funders, and institutions can rely on for the long term. This is demonstrated by Crossref’s commitment to the the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI), which constitute commitments to building a resilient and transparent infrastructure for research—sustainability, community governance, and openness. Ed emphasized how Crossref is aligning with these principles and collaborates with other adopters to reflect and continuously align these with the needs of the scholarly community, with a public consultation on proposed revisions to POSI forthcoming next year.

Ginny Hendricks highlighted key membership and metadata trends. She noted that as of 2024, half of Crossref members are based in Asia. This year, as always in recent years, we saw many new organisations from Indonesia, Turkey, India, and Brazil join us. Removing those fast-growing countries for the chart’s clarity, we can see that some of the next most active countries are Pakistan, Mexico, Spain, Bangladesh, and Ecuador, among others.

There are now ~163 million open metadata records with Crossref DOIs, and Ginny pointed out increases in the registration of preprints, peer-review reports, and grants. In terms of metadata elements, it’s good to see that more publishers recognize the importance of including abstracts and ROR IDs in their metadata records. Also, in line with the community’s concerns about integrity, our members have been enriching their records with direct assertions of retractions.

Then, Ginny went on to report on the progress towards our strategic goals:

Contribute to an environment where the community identifies and co-creates solutions for broad benefit
A sustainable source of complete, open, and global scholarly metadata and relationships
Manage Crossref openly and sustainably, modernizing and making transparent all operations so that we are accountable to the communities that govern us.
Foster a strong team because reliable infrastructure needs committed people who contribute to and realize the vision and thrive in doing it.

Demos

Lena Stoll and Patrick Vale’s session gave members a practical preview of our latest tools.

Patrick started by reflecting on the challenge of making our identifiers useful for people using screen readers (and other assistive technologies). He thanked all who responded to our past consultation on the topic and presented the Crossref DOI Accessibility Enhancer – the browser plug-in initially available for Firefox (and soon also for Chrome). He shared the Gitlab repo for anyone interested in trying it and invited feedback as we’re hoping to iterate on this.

Patrick then went on to talk about our openness to community contributions to Crossref tools, with an example of the recent contribution from CWTS Leiden to our Participation Reports. Thanks to their work, our members can now see the proportion of works they’ve registered that include affiliation information and ROR IDs, alongside the previously available key metadata such as references, abstracts, ORCID iDs, funding information, or Crossmark.

Finally, Lena demonstrated the latest extension of our record management tool that’s just been made available to make manual registration of metadata records for journal articles easier. The new form is flexible and driven by our metadata schema. Importantly for our members, it simplifies the workflow with input validations and automated ISSN matching, and it enables members to register author affiliations with an integrated ROR look-up. We hope this will support our smaller members, who are relying on our helper tools to register their content.

Throughout the session, members were encouraged to use these tools and explore new resources available through Crossref. We believe that by taking advantage of these resources, you can enhance your research and publishing experience, and contribute to the growth and development of the scholarly community.

The discussion about open scholarly infrastructure

The panel on open scholarly infrastructure brought together experts with a wide range of experience in the field. Moderated by Lucy Ofiesh, Crossref’s Chief Operating Officer, the discussion featured six invited speakers who shared their insights on the opportunities and challenges facing the scholarly ecosystem: Ed Pentz, Crossref; Sarah Lippincott, Dryad; Amélie Church, Sorbonne University; Joanna Ball, DOAJ; Ann Li, Airiti; and Richard Bruce Lamptey, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology.

The panel talked about what openness in scholarly infrastructure means, why it’s important, its sustainability, and how to tackle challenges and gaps across the ecosystem. They highlighted frameworks like the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI), the Barcelona Declaration, and the FOREST Framework as key tools for guiding work on governance, sustainability, and equity. The discussion highlighted the need for more collaboration, inclusivity, and practical ways to ensure open infrastructure remains sustainable in the long run.

They also stressed how openness supports research integrity. How transparent systems allow researchers to question methods, verify findings, and preserve data. Amelie Church expanded on this point, underscoring the important role of open infrastructure in addressing challenges to integrity. She explained that such transparency enables the scholarly community to scrutinize research processes, ensuring the quality of outputs and their impact on society. Without openness, researchers face barriers to maintaining trust in their work, making open infrastructure necessary for research integrity and public confidence in science.

“By focusing on accessibility, transparency, and community engagement, open infrastructure can reshape academic and research ecosystems in transformative ways.” ~Richard Bruce Lamptey

Regarding sustainability, Sarah Lippincott stressed the importance of aligning funding models with community needs while addressing governance challenges. She pointed out that while initial funding can launch infrastructure, long-term sustainability requires consistent community investment and robust governance frameworks. This balance, she explained, is essential to ensure equity and transparency.

Collaboration was another important topic. Joanna Ball and Sarah Lippincott shared examples of how pooling expertise and resources—such as in the global support for ROR—can strengthen systems and make them more sustainable. These initiatives show the power of collective efforts in addressing technical and resource barriers. However, inclusivity remains an ongoing challenge.

The panel discussed the ways in which language barriers, resource limitations, and reliance on proprietary systems continue to exclude researchers from underrepresented regions. Ann Li highlighted how addressing these disparities is critical to ensuring the global accessibility of open infrastructure. By fostering inclusive practices, the scholarly community can mitigate biases and build tools that reflect a broader range of research contributions.

”My hope is that open infrastructure can have the resources that it needs to thrive, not just merely survive, and also that open infrastructure communities and organisations look to the value of frameworks that we’ve talked about today to help align themselves and improve their policies and practices, because there’s always room for growth, even in the best, most well-intentioned communities.” ~Sarah Lippincott, Dryad

The panel wrapped up the discussion by expressing optimism for the future of open scholarly infrastructure and emphasized the importance of continued investment, collaboration across organisations, and transparency in operations. The discussion reinforced the idea that open infrastructure provides a strong foundation for research that is equitable, sustainable, and accessible to all.

Updates from our Community

We enjoyed talks from our community about increasing their participation in the Research Nexus by adopting, using and enhancing metadata in different ways. Robbykha Rosalien hosted talks from the EuropePMC, Dutch Research Council, eLife, and CSIRO featured in Session I, and Amanda French hosted CLOCKSS, Sciety, and Redalyc in Session II.

Michael Parkin talked about preprints in Europe PMC. Europe PMC is a database for life science literature and a platform for content-based innovation. They started indexing preprints via Crossref REST API in 2018. Michael presented their work on discoverability of preprints in their database, including reflections on early challenges, as well as the latest efforts in surfacing available community reviews.

Hans de Jonge talked about the Dutch Research Council’s (NWO) dedication to open science, with policies ensuring that publications and data funded by NWO are openly available. They embrace open science principles for their own metadata and is a signatory of the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information. Hans focused on NWO’s recent introduction of Grant IDs through Crossref’s Grant Linking System (GLS). He shared their approach, the motivations behind introducing Grant IDs, and some challenges they faced.

Frederick Atherden explained how eLife, a nonprofit led by scientists, use Crossref’s Grant Linking System to include grant DOIs in their publication metadata. It allows authors to add grant DOIs during submission, and they developed a tool to match grant numbers with DOIs during the proofing process to improve accuracy. Their goal is to follow best practices for metadata, making content easier to find and link to.

Brietta Pike covered how CSIRO is working to improve metadata quality for its journals, making research more discoverable and trustworthy. CSIRO faced challenges like inconsistent XML tagging, outdated systems, and data loss. To address these, they formed a project team, created a clear XML stylesheet, and updated their workflows. Recent progress includes better funding data, clearer license information, and more complete affiliation tagging. These efforts aim to support a more transparent and accessible research environment.

Alicia Wise of CLOCKSS talked about recent collaborations seeking to safeguard our cultural and scholarly heritage over the long term. CLOCKSS, a community-run archive, is dedicated to preserving scholarly content to remain accessible and unchanged for future generations. True preservation requires securely storing content in trusted archives that are actively maintained. A group of librarians and publishers developed a guide to help publishers preserve content, they also established an archival standard for EPUB formats to ensure ebooks can be stored effectively, and launched a pilot project to track preserved books, helping libraries and scholars identify safely stored titles.

Mark Williams from Sciety talked about how Sciety uses Crossref metadata to create detailed preprint histories. By partnering with organisations and communities worldwide, Sciety platform gathers public reviews, highlights, and recommendations on preprinted research, helping researchers evaluate the quality and relevance of new studies. Through linking related preprints and journal articles, Sciety builds a connected view of each research work. Although challenges like inconsistent terminology and identifier gaps persist, these efforts enhance the visibility and credibility of preprints.

Arianna Becerril-García of AmeliCA/Redalyc shared insights on diamond open-access journals in Latin America. Redalyc is an open-access infrastructure that supports journals by providing free services like visibility and production tools. Redalyc has a role in sustaining Latin America’s unique approach to open-access publishing, where most journals are backed by academic institutions and public funds, allowing free access for both readers and authors. Arianna stressed the need to treat these journals as digital public goods and urged the communities they serve to help ensure their long-term sustainability. Despite limited resources and global under-recognition, these journals serve an international research audience, including authors from Europe, Africa, and Asia. Redalyc and other open infrastructures play a key role by offering tools that reduce production co-sts and improve discoverability, all without financial barriers. Noted was how this approach aligns with UNESCO’s open science framework, which promotes inclusivity and addresses long-standing inequalities in scholarly publishing.

Afternoon of more resources and updates from Crossref

After a mid-day break (in Europe), Luis Montilla kicked off the second session with a practical tutorial of Crossref’s REST API. Following his last year’s intro to the Crossref API, this time he offered a step-by-step guide to help attendees maximize the API’s capabilities for metadata retrieval with advice on:

Managing large data requests with pagination and iterations
Incorporating safety mechanisms - to avoid hitting rate limits, Luis recommended adding pauses between requests and sharing example scripts to streamline this.

For those interested in learning more, look at the new Crossref API Learning Hub— a new resource offering guides, scripts, and training materials to simplify complex queries. Please share questions about things you’re not sure about in our community forum, to help guide development of future demos.

Patricia Feeney followed with updates on metadata schema changes. She introduced our recent shift to integrate the Funder Registry with ROR, which allows members to use a single identifier system, simplifying data management by reducing redundancy. Patricia explained that, for now, the current identifiers remain valid, so members won’t need to make immediate changes. She also outlined planned support for version metadata, typed citations, and future plans to expand support for contributor role vocabularies, and invited community participation in a planned multilingual metadata working group.

Next, Kora Korzec offered an update on the progress in our research on Resourcing Crossref for Future Sustainability and opened up a discussion about the best ways of assessing our members’ size and ability to pay. In light of our ambition to streamline discounts, we also invited suggestions for discounts to support accessibility and fuller participation in the Research Nexus.

As part of the discussion, we’ve learned who was in attendance during the session:

We’ve heard a lot of support for our current GEM program. While it was clear from our poll that publishing revenue is not the most relevant measure of size or capacity for all those present – establishing a good alternative proved challenging. The idea of considering the size of the organisation as its largest entity has been discussed, and important points were raised about budgets in different types of distributed organisations (e.g., on the position of libraries within large universities).

The official Annual Meeting part commenced after the discussion, with a report on the State of Crossref from Lucy Ofiesh, and commenced with our Board election. Lucy highlighted some of the key accomplishments of the year so far, including:

Research for Resourcing Crossref for Future Sustainability (RCFS)
Integrity of the Scholarly Record (ISR)
Grant Linking System (GLS) reached 5 years
Automated some very manual membership processes
Released new form for journal article record registration
Upgraded Participation Reports to include Affiliations and ROR IDs
Launched a new API Learning Hub
Paused further development of a Relationships API
Migrated to a new open-source database
Schema development - ROR as Funder identifiers
REST API bug fixes and metadata consistency fixes.

Then she reflected on the membership growth––Crossref is now made up of 21,000 organisations from 160 countries. We reviewed our 2024 year-end financial forecast. As we’re bouncing back from COVID-19, our travel expenses have grown this year, and so have the fees for cloud services hosting. These are all as planned and happen in the context of healthy growth, including that from adoption and increased usage of paid services. We’re in a healthy financial position as membership revenue and usage fees, like content registration and Similarity Check document checking fees, continue to grow from the previous year.

Thank you to everyone who joined us for Crossref2024. This year’s meeting showcased our collective dedication to advancing open, accessible research infrastructure and underscored the power of collaboration in building a stronger scholarly community. As we reflect on the rich discussions and insights shared during the event, it’s clear our community is committed to advancing open and sustainable scholarly infrastructure.

Looking ahead, we’ll continue collaborating with members and partners to tackle challenges, expand accessibility, and foster collaboration. A key focus will be enhancing tools and metadata standards to serve the community better. Through innovative solutions and strategic initiatives like the Research Nexus, our collective efforts will make research more connected and accessible for all.

For anyone who couldn’t attend live, recordings are now available on our website. We’re excited to see how the ideas exchanged during this meeting spark progress across the scholarly ecosystem in the coming months.

Metadata connects the global community – summary of our Community update 2023

Kornelia Korzec — Fri, 12 May 2023 00:00:00 +0000

We were delighted to engage with over 200 community members in our latest Community update calls. We aimed to present a diverse selection of highlights on our progress and discuss your questions about participating in the Research Nexus. For those who didn’t get a chance to join us, I’ll briefly summarise the content of the sessions here and I invite you to join the conversations on the Community Forum.

You can take a look at the slides here and the recordings of the calls are available here.

TL;DR

The membership is growing, including that in the GEM programme countries, and we focus on adding new Sponsors in areas where we have insufficient coverage to support prospective members
The grant registration form is available for funders who don’t use XML, and we’re working to expand to other record types
The preview of the Relationship API endpoint is available – start exploring relationships between different records and record types, from citations to funding, and more
Usefulness of metadata records for inferring integrity of the content or publisher relies on all members of the community contributing to this effort. Crossref will continue to enrich our schema to capture new types of relevant information and to promote the best metadata practices.
Cited-by is now open for everyone to use 🎉 – no need for additional authorisation steps – Registering your references will have even greater impact now!
The Labs participation report is available and it’s been a hit. Please note that this tool is still underdevelopment – new functionalities can be added but there might also be bugs that we are yet to resolve, so don’t hold off with feedback.
We’ve received close to 1,000 responses in our first ever Metadata Priorities Survey. It’s still open until 18th of May and we encourage all members to take it. So far we’ve learnt that majority of our respondents are keen to deposit as much metadata as possible – and some would like to register more than we currently enable.

Metadata completeness and integrity

A key theme of the call was encouraging greater participation in the Research Nexus and the importance of complete metadata. One particular benefit of a rich and transparent metadata network is the opportunity to infer judgments on the integrity of the scholarly record (ISR). Amanda Bartell, Head of Member Experience, highlighted that the community agrees that availability of information about relationships between research outputs, institutions and other elements of the scholarly ecosystem together provide essential context for deciding about trustworthiness of organisations and their published content. Conversely, it can make it harder for parties to pass off information as trustworthy when that context is missing. Amanda summarised community feedback related to Crossref’s role in the integrity of the scholarly record in her recent blog post.

Our members can contribute to that rich network of relationships by curating their metadata and providing contextual information – especially the highly sought for elements highlighted in the presentation.

Our community

Since LIVE22, we have had 1,130 new members join us. That includes 51 organisations from countries included in our Global Equitable Membership (GEM) programme. You can find out more in the latest news about the programme on our Community Forum from Susan Collins, Community Engagement Manager.

We see great opportunities with enriching our metadata corpus with works carried out in some of the least economically-advantaged regions of the world. Registering their content with us will increase its discoverability for the global scholarship, while adding important relationships into the Research Nexus. We’re glad at the new members joining us under the auspices of the Global Equitable Membership (GEM) programme and we’re reaching out to existing and new communities with our Ambassadors, to encourage more metadata registrations.

Our Sponsors and Ambassadors, alongside our Outreach and Membership Team, support members to participate as effectively as possible in the Research Nexus. We’re delighted to see both programmes growing, with eight new Sponsors and seven new Ambassadors having joined us since October.

Simultaneously, we’re working with like-minded organisations to provide useful resources for the growing and changing scholarly communications community. The recent launch of the online forum for new publishers seeking to learn about best practices in the industry, The PLACE, is another way in which we hope to support wider participation in the Research Nexus, and promote open and sustainable practices.

With our growing community, there’s always interest in We have planned a webinar later this month to provide an overview of Crossref – including the members benefits and obligations, and how to use our services.

Service news

References metadata is essential for connecting works with one another. It enables provision of citation information, aids discoverability for researchers, as well as assessment and evaluation for institutions and funders. It’s almost a year since all the references metadata deposited with Crossref has been made openly available. At the moment, 52.0% of journal articles, and 44.5% of all works have references. Martyn Rittman, Product Manager for the Cited-by service says “It’s not bad, but we can do better!”

With three different mechanisms for doing it available to our members, we hope that all have a suitable tool to fit with their needs. You can register references with XML via HTTPS POST (structured or unstructured), with the dedicated OJS Plugin if you’re an OJS user, or with our Simple Text Query (unstructured text) – this is especially relevant to the Web Deposit Form users. We find that journal articles with deposited references seem to be cited more than those without, and by a lot: 21.8 vs. 6.1 incoming citations on average!

We have now made our Cited-by service open to all. To realise its full benefit, it is essential to register your references.

There were concerns in the community about references ‘lost’ as part of supplementary material that may not be registered in its own right. Colleagues advised that if the data has an identifier, such as a DataCite DOI, you can add a relationship to say that it’s supplementary material (see https://www-crossref-org.pluma.sjfc.edu/documentation/schema-library/markup-guide-metadata-segments/relationships/) or add them as a reference. Martyn is curious to hear from others in the community on this topic. There is an increasing focus on data citations and we’d like to see how we can better support them.

Many members have questions related to plans for replacing Metadata Manager. Rachael Lammey, Director of Product, explained that we’re working on broadening our new Grant Registration Form to include more record types over the course of 2023. It has a few advantages over the current Web Deposit Form. It allows you to save a local copy once you first register a piece of content. It makes updating your records easier, as you can drop that file onto the form to add the metadata so that you can update it and redeposit rather than having to fill out the information all over again, and we have started adding automatic lookup fields to help users populate information on affiliations using ROR IDs more accurately. We will keep you posted on the progress with new developments and ask for beta testers for new record types as they are added.

Metadata information about individual work is not as useful as the opportunity to interrogate the relationships between works and within the global scholarly output. [The preview of the Relationship API endpoint](https://community-crossref-org.pluma.sjfc.edu/t/relationships-are-here/3523, modest as it is at this stage – with only 1% of our relationship metadata included (or 10 mln relationships) – offers a powerful demonstration of the way in which metadata contextualises research outputs within the entangled network of ever-progressing scholarship.

We’ve also mentioned the recent transition of our website to GitLab, which allows everyone to contribute by creating merge requests and issues. Through this open collaboration, which supports our commitment to meet the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure, we aim to cultivate a sense of ownership among contributors and make our information and documentation more useful and efficient for everyone.

Labs participation report

For organisations who wish to keep a close eye on their metadata – to understand what they deposit, how that compares with other members, and what could be improved, can start using our Lab participation reports. We encourage you to test this not-yet-finished tool and let us know your feedback. Participants at our updates found it very informative, with the opportunity to preview contents of recent deposits, see the participation breakdowns by a prefix, and improved data visualisation. We had questions about how data citation counts are generated in the report. Martyn Rittman explained that: “This is a prototype and that’s one of the issues we need to tidy up! We know via Event Data and our Scholix endpoint what is a dataset, but that hasn’t yet been incorporated to the Labs Reports”. There was also a suggestion of enabling export of simple lists of all member’s DOIs with respective URLs from the report and the team might look into that. Yet, lists of DOIs missing specific metadata types are already downloadable.

To learn more about the reports, try them out, and to provide feedback, please take a look at the information shared recently by Paul Davis, Tech Support Specialist & R&D Support Analyst.

Metadata priorities

Patricia Feeney, Head of Metadata, shared some updates about the current metadata corpus registered with Crossref, and some recent trends.

She then went on to summarise some preliminary results of our ongoing metadata priorities survey, which all members are encouraged to take part in by 18th of May. So far, we’ve received close to 1,000 responses. We’ve learnt that majority of our respondents are keen to deposit as much metadata as possible – and some would like to register more than we currently enable. Close to a half of the respondents who did not express an interest in sharing all metadata are still interested to learn more about the value of their metadata.

She then went on to summarise some preliminary results of our ongoing metadata priorities survey, which all members are encouraged to take part in by 18th of May. So far, We’ve received close to 1,000 responses. We’ve learnt that majority of our respondents are keen to deposit as much metadata as possible – and some would like to register more than we currently enable. However, close to a half of the respondents are interested to learn more about the value of their metadata.

The survey consults our members about their preferences for developing any of the potential projects under consideration:

Contributor IDs
Contributor roles/ CRediT
Alternate names
Multilingual metadata
Expand abstract support
Citation types (content)
Conference event IDs

It appears that support for citation types is the strongest among our respondents, while very polarised views have been shared about multilingual metadata and expanding support for abstracts. Among other suggestions, we received a lot of comments related to keywords. Overall, support for all projects was strong.

The verdicts are not in yet – still time to respond to the survey and make your metadata priorities known!

Thank you and keep in touch

With much of the content shared ahead of the time through our Community Forum, the sessions were bubbling with questions and valuable comments from the community. We look forward to continuing the conversations asynchronously on the Community Forum. Please don’t hesitate to share your thoughts and ask further questions. We’d also love to hear suggestions for topics of the most interest for our future updates.

The more complete the metadata we collect together, the more connections in the ecosystem become transparent. This creates opportunities for discovery and collaborations, and greater insights about the scholarly process. Our community is growing in numbers, diversity, and technical capacity for building the Research Nexus together. We welcome your questions and suggestions of initiatives that support the fullest participation possible.