Posts Tagged ‘CrossRef’

Questions about the (metadata) components of a scientific article.

Monday, April 8th, 2019

The conventional procedures for reporting analysis or new results in science is to compose an “article”, augment that perhaps with “supporting information” or “SI”, submit to a journal which undertakes peer review, with revision as necessary for acceptance and finally publication. If errors in the original are later identified, a separate corrigendum can be submitted to the same journal, although this is relatively rare. Any new information which appears post-publication is then considered for a new article, and the cycle continues. Here I consider the possibilities for variations in this sequence of events.

The new disruptors in the processes of scientific communication are the “data“, which can now be given a separate existence (as FAIR data) from the article and its co-published “SI”. Nowadays both the “article+SI” and any separate “data” have another, mostly invisible component, the “metadata“. Few authors ever see this metadata. For the article, it is generated by the publisher (as part of the service to the authors), and sent to CrossRef, which acts as a global registration agency for this particular metadata. For the data, it is assembled when the data is submitted to a “data repository”, either by the authors providing the information manually, or by automated workflows installed in the repository or by a combination of both. It might also be assembled by the article publisher as part of a complete metadata package covering both article and data, rather than being separated from the article metadata. Then, the metadata about data is registered with the global agency DataCite (and occasionally with CrossRef for historical reasons).‡ Few depositors ever inspect this metadata after it is registered; even fewer authors are involved in decisions about that metadata, or have any inputs to the processes involved in its creation.

Let me analyse a recent example.

  1. For the article[1] you can see the “landing page” for the associated metadata as https://search.crossref.org/?q=10.1021/acsomega.8b03005 and actually retrieve the metadata using https://api.crossref.org/v1/works/10.1021/acsomega.8b03005, albeit in a rather human-unfriendly manner.† This may be because metadata as such is considered by CrossRef as something just for machines to process and not for humans to see!
  2. Citation #22 in the above does have its own metadata record, obtainable using: 
    https://data.datacite.org/application/vnd.datacite.datacite+xml/10.14469/hpc/4751

    • This has an entry
      <relatedIdentifier relatedIdentifierType="DOI" relationType="IsReferencedBy">10.1021/acsomega.8b03005</relatedIdentifier>
      which points back to the article.[1]
  3. To summarise, the article noted above[1] has a metadata record that does not include any information about the references/citations (apart from an ambiguous count). A human reading the article can however can easily identify one citation pointing to the article data, which it turns out DOES have a metadata record which both human and machine can identify as pointing back to the article. Let us hope the publisher (the American  Chemical  Society) corrects this asymmetry in the future; it can be done as shown here![2]

For both types of metadata record, it is the publisher that retains any rights to modify them. Here however we encounter an interesting difference. The publishers of the data are, in this case, also the authors of the article! A modification to this record was made post-publication by this author so as to include the journal article identifier once it had been received from the publisher,[1] as in 2 above. Subsequently, these topics were discussed at a workshop on FAIR data, during which further pertinent articles[3], [4], [5] relating to the one discussed above[1] were shown in a slide by one of the speakers. Since this was deemed to add value to the context of the data for the original article, identifiers for these articles were also appended to the metadata record of the data.

This now raises the following questions:

  1. Should a metadata record be considered a living object, capable of being updated to reflect new information received after its first publication?
  2. If metadata records are an intrinsic part of both a scientific article and any data associated with that article, should authors be fully aware of their contents (if only as part of due diligence  to correct errors or to query omissions)?
  3. Should the referees of such works also be made aware of the metadata records? It is of course enough of a challenge to get referees to inspect data (whether as SI or as FAIR), never mind metadata! Put another way, should metadata records be considered as part of the materials reviewed by referees, or something independent of referees and the responsibility of their publishers?
  4. More generally, how would/should the peer-review system respond to living metadata records? Should there be guidelines regarding such records? Or ethical considerations?

I pose these questions because I am not aware of much discussion around these topics; I suggest there probably should be!

‡Actually CrossRef and DataCite exchange each other’s metadata. However, each uses a somewhat different schema, so some components may be lost in this transit. †JSON, which is not particularly human friendly.

References

  1. A. Barba, S. Dominguez, C. Cobas, D.P. Martinsen, C. Romain, H.S. Rzepa, and F. Seoane, "Workflows Allowing Creation of Journal Article Supporting Information and Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR)-Enabled Publication of Spectroscopic Data", ACS Omega, vol. 4, pp. 3280-3286, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.8b03005
  2. S. Arkhipenko, M.T. Sabatini, A.S. Batsanov, V. Karaluka, T.D. Sheppard, H.S. Rzepa, and A. Whiting, "Mechanistic insights into boron-catalysed direct amidation reactions", Chemical Science, vol. 9, pp. 1058-1072, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7sc03595k
  3. T. Monaretto, A. Souza, T.B. Moraes, V. Bertucci‐Neto, C. Rondeau‐Mouro, and L.A. Colnago, "Enhancing signal‐to‐noise ratio and resolution in low‐field NMR relaxation measurements using post‐acquisition digital filters", Magnetic Resonance in Chemistry, vol. 57, pp. 616-625, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrc.4806
  4. D. Barache, J. Antoine, and J. Dereppe, "The Continuous Wavelet Transform, an Analysis Tool for NMR Spectroscopy", Journal of Magnetic Resonance, vol. 128, pp. 1-11, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmre.1997.1214
  5. U.L. Günther, C. Ludwig, and H. Rüterjans, "NMRLAB—Advanced NMR Data Processing in Matlab", Journal of Magnetic Resonance, vol. 145, pp. 201-208, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmre.2000.2071

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Chemical IT | No Comments »

“Richer metadata makes content more useful”

Saturday, February 16th, 2019

The title of this post comes from the site www.crossref.org/members/prep/ Here you can explore how your favourite publisher of scientific articles exposes metadata for their journal.

Firstly, a reminder that when an article is published, the publisher collects information about the article (the “metadata”) and registers this information with CrossRef in exchange for a DOI. This metadata in turn is used to power e.g. a search engine which allows “rich” or “deep” searching of the articles to be undertaken. There is also what is called an API (Application Programmer Interface) which allows services to be built offering deeper insights into what are referred to as scientific objects. One such service is “Event Data“, which attempts to create links between various research objects such as publications, citations, data and even commentaries in social media. A live feed can be seen here.

So here are the results for the metadata provided by six publishers familiar to most chemists, with categories including;

  1. References
  2. Open References
  3. ORCID IDs
  4. Text mining URLs
  5. Abstracts

RSC

ACS

Elsevier

Springer-Nature

Wiley

Science

One immediately notices the large differences between publishers. Thus most have 0% metadata for the article abstracts, but one (the RSC) has 87%! Another striking difference is those that support open references (OpenCitations). The RSC and Springer Nature are 99-100% compliant whilst the ACS is 0%. Yet another variation is the adoption of the ORCID (Open Researcher and Collaborator Identifier), where the learned society publishers (RSC, ACS) achieve > 80%, but the commercial publishers are in the lower range of 20-49%. 

To me the most intriguing was the Text mining URLs. From the help pages, “The Crossref REST API can be used by researchers to locate the full text of content across publisher sites. Publishers register these URLs – often including multiple links for different formats such as PDF or XML – and researchers can request them programatically“. Here the RSC is at 0%, ACS is at 8% but the commercial publishers are 80+%. I tried to find out more at e.g. https://www.springernature.com/gp/researchers/text-and-data-mining but the site was down when I tried. This can be quite a controversial area. Sometimes the publisher exerts strict control over how the text mining can be carried out and how any results can be disseminated.  Aaron Swartz famously fell foul of this.

I am intrigued as to how, as a reader with no particular pre-assembled toolkit for text mining, I can use this metadata provided by the publishers to enhance my science. After all, 80+% of articles with some of the publishers apparently have a mining URL that I could use programmatically. If anyone reading this can send some examples of the process, I would be very grateful. 

Finally I note the absence of any metadata in the above categories relating to FAIR data. Such data also has the potential for programmatic procedures to retrieve and re-use it (some examples are available here[1]), but apparently publishers do not (yet) collect metadata relating to FAIR. Hopefully they soon will.

References

  1. A. Barba, S. Dominguez, C. Cobas, D.P. Martinsen, C. Romain, H.S. Rzepa, and F. Seoane, "Workflows Allowing Creation of Journal Article Supporting Information and Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR)-Enabled Publication of Spectroscopic Data", ACS Omega, vol. 4, pp. 3280-3286, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.8b03005

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Interesting chemistry | 1 Comment »

"Richer metadata makes content more useful"

Saturday, February 16th, 2019

The title of this post comes from the site www.crossref.org/members/prep/ Here you can explore how your favourite publisher of scientific articles exposes metadata for their journal.

Firstly, a reminder that when an article is published, the publisher collects information about the article (the “metadata”) and registers this information with CrossRef in exchange for a DOI. This metadata in turn is used to power e.g. a search engine which allows “rich” or “deep” searching of the articles to be undertaken. There is also what is called an API (Application Programmer Interface) which allows services to be built offering deeper insights into what are referred to as scientific objects. One such service is “Event Data“, which attempts to create links between various research objects such as publications, citations, data and even commentaries in social media. A live feed can be seen here.

So here are the results for the metadata provided by six publishers familiar to most chemists, with categories including;

  1. References
  2. Open References
  3. ORCID IDs
  4. Text mining URLs
  5. Abstracts

RSC

ACS

Elsevier

Springer-Nature

Wiley

Science

One immediately notices the large differences between publishers. Thus most have 0% metadata for the article abstracts, but one (the RSC) has 87%! Another striking difference is those that support open references (OpenCitations). The RSC and Springer Nature are 99-100% compliant whilst the ACS is 0%. Yet another variation is the adoption of the ORCID (Open Researcher and Collaborator Identifier), where the learned society publishers (RSC, ACS) achieve > 80%, but the commercial publishers are in the lower range of 20-49%. 

To me the most intriguing was the Text mining URLs. From the help pages, “The Crossref REST API can be used by researchers to locate the full text of content across publisher sites. Publishers register these URLs – often including multiple links for different formats such as PDF or XML – and researchers can request them programatically“. Here the RSC is at 0%, ACS is at 8% but the commercial publishers are 80+%. I tried to find out more at e.g. https://www.springernature.com/gp/researchers/text-and-data-mining but the site was down when I tried. This can be quite a controversial area. Sometimes the publisher exerts strict control over how the text mining can be carried out and how any results can be disseminated.  Aaron Swartz famously fell foul of this.

I am intrigued as to how, as a reader with no particular pre-assembled toolkit for text mining, I can use this metadata provided by the publishers to enhance my science. After all, 80+% of articles with some of the publishers apparently have a mining URL that I could use programmatically. If anyone reading this can send some examples of the process, I would be very grateful. 

Finally I note the absence of any metadata in the above categories relating to FAIR data. Such data also has the potential for programmatic procedures to retrieve and re-use it (some examples are available here[1]), but apparently publishers do not (yet) collect metadata relating to FAIR. Hopefully they soon will.

References

  1. A. Barba, S. Dominguez, C. Cobas, D.P. Martinsen, C. Romain, H.S. Rzepa, and F. Seoane, "Workflows Allowing Creation of Journal Article Supporting Information and Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR)-Enabled Publication of Spectroscopic Data", ACS Omega, vol. 4, pp. 3280-3286, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.8b03005

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Interesting chemistry | 1 Comment »

500 chemical twists: a (chalk and cheese) comparison of the impacts of blog posts and journal articles.

Friday, June 3rd, 2016

The title might give it away; this is my 500th blog post, the first having come some seven years ago. Very little online activity nowadays is excluded from measurement and so it is no surprise that this blog and another of my “other” scholarly endeavours, viz publishing in traditional journals, attract such “metrics” or statistics. The h-index is a well-known but somewhat controversial measure of the impact of journal articles; here I thought I might instead take a look at three less familiar ones – one relating to blogging, one specific to journal publishing and one to research data.

First, an update on the accumulated outreach of this blog over this seven-year period. The total number of country domains measured is 190. The African continent still has quite a few areas with zero hits (as does Svalbard, with a population of only 2600 for a land mass area 61,000 km2 or 23 km2 per person). Given the low blog readership density on the African continent, it would be interesting to find out whether journal readership is any better.

Next, I look at the temporal distribution for individual posts. The first has attracted the highest total; in five years it has had 19,262 views (the diagram below shows the number of views per day). Four others exceed 10,000 and 80 exceed 1000 views.

Of these five, the next is the oldest, going back to 2009. I was very surprised to find such longevity, with the number of views increasing rather than decreasing with the passage of time.

So time now to compare these statistics with the journals. And of course its chalk and cheese. A “view” for a post means someone (or something) accessing the post URL, which is then recorded in the server log. Resolving the URL does at least load the entire content of the post; whether its read or not is of course not recorded. Importantly, if you want to view the content at some later stage, a new “view” has to be made (although some browsers do save a web page and allow offline viewing at a later stage, but I suspect this usage is low). With electronic journal access, it’s rather different. Access to an article is now predominantly via two mechanisms:

  1. From the table of contents (this is somewhat analogous to browsing a blog)
  2. From the article DOI.

Statistics for these two methods are gathered differently. The new CrossRef resource chronograph.labs.crossref.org (CrossRef allocate all journal DOIs) can be used to measure what they call DOI “resolutions”. A DOI resolution however leads one only to what is called the “landing page”, where the interested reader can view the title, the graphical abstract and some other metadata. It does not mean of course that they go on to actually view the article (as HTML, equivalent to the blog above, or probably more often by downloading a PDF file). Here are a few results using this method:

What about the other main journal article access method, not via a DOI but from a table of contents page journal page? A Google search revealed this site: jusp.mimas.ac.uk (JUSP stands for Journal usage statistics portal, which sounded promising). This site collects “COUNTER compliant usage data”. COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources) is an initiative supported by many journal publishers and it sounds an interesting way of measuring “usage” (as opposed to “views” or “resolutions”; it’s that chalk and cheese again!). I would love to be able to show you some statistics using this resource, but the “small print” caught me out: “JUSP gives librarians a simple way of analysing the value and impact of their electronic journals”. Put simply, I am a researcher, not a librarian. As a researcher I do not have direct access; JUSP is a closed, restricted access (albeit taxpayer-funded) resource. I am discussing this with our head of information resources (who is a librarian) and hope to report back here on the outcome.

Finally research data. This is almost too new to be able to measure, but this resource stats.datacite.org is starting to collect statistics on data resolutions (similar to DOI resolutions).

  1. You can see from the below for Imperial College (in fact this represents the two data repositories that we operate and which I cite here extensively on these blogs) that the resolution at running up to about 200 a month per dataset (more typically ~25 a month), with a total of 5065 resolutions for all items in March 2016 (the blog has ~12,000 views per month).

  2. Figshare is another data repository we have made use of:

So to the summary.

  1. Firstly, we see that I have shown three forms of impact, views, resolutions and usage. If one had statistics on all three, one might then try to see if they are correlated in any way. Even then, normalisation might be a challenge.
  2. Over ~7 years, five posts on this blog have attracted >10,000 views.
  3. Many of the blog posts have a long “finish” (to use a wine tasting term); the views continue regularly and often increase over time.
  4. My analysis of the three journal articles above (and about 15 others) shows that between 50-300 resolutions over a few years is fairly typical (for this researcher at least; I am sure most better known researchers attract far far more).
  5. The temporal distribution for article resolutions and blog views show both can have continuing impact over an extended period. None of the 18 articles I looked at show a significantly increasing impact with time but many of the blog posts do. This tends to suggest that the audiences for each are quite different; researchers for articles and a fair proportion of inquisitive students for the blog?
  6. I may speculate whether a correlation between my article resolutions and my h-index probably might be found, but the article resolution has a fine-grained temporal resolution (allowing a derivative wrt time to be obtained) that is perhaps potentially more valuable than just the coarse h-index integration (an article can of course be cited for both positive and negative reasons!).
  7. Initial analysis for data shows resolutions running at a similar rate to article resolutions. It is not yet possible to correlate data resolutions with article resolutions in which that data is discussed.

References

  1. S.M. Rappaport, and H.S. Rzepa, "Intrinsically Chiral Aromaticity. Rules Incorporating Linking Number, Twist, and Writhe for Higher-Twist Möbius Annulenes", Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 130, pp. 7613-7619, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja710438j
  2. A.E. Aliev, J.R.T. Arendorf, I. Pavlakos, R.B. Moreno, M.J. Porter, H.S. Rzepa, and W.B. Motherwell, "Surfing π Clouds for Noncovalent Interactions: Arenes versus Alkenes", Angewandte Chemie International Edition, vol. 54, pp. 551-555, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201409672
  3. K. Abersfelder, A.J.P. White, H.S. Rzepa, and D. Scheschkewitz, "A Tricyclic Aromatic Isomer of Hexasilabenzene", Science, vol. 327, pp. 564-566, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1181771

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Chemical IT | 4 Comments »

Data-free research data management? Not an oxymoron.

Tuesday, May 24th, 2016

I occasionally post about "RDM" (research data management), an activity that has recently become a formalised essential part of the research processes. I say recently formalised, since researchers have of course kept research notebooks recording their activities and their data since the dawn of science, but not always in an open and transparent manner. The desirability of doing so was revealed by the 2009 "Climategate" events. In the UK, Climategate was apparently the catalyst which persuaded the funding councils (such as the EPSRC, the Royal Society, etc) to formulate policies which required all their funded researchers to adopt the principles of RDM by May 2015 and in their future researches. An early career researcher here, anxious to conform to the funding body instructions, sent me an email a few days ago asking about one aspect of RDM which got me thinking.

The question related to the divide between data as a separate research object (and which therefore has to be managed), and data as an inseparable part of the article narrative, which is of course ostensibly managed by the journal publication processes. Such data may often be the description of a process rather than simply tables of numbers or graphs. In chemistry it may include chemical names and chemical terms as part of an experimental procedure. For one nice illustration of such embedded data, go look at the chemical tagger page. Here the data is blending with the semantics, and the two are not easily separated. So, when such separation is not easily achieved, should the specific processes required by RDM as illustrated in the five bullet points below actually be followed?

  1. Specify a data management plan to be followed, as for example points 2-5 below.
  2. Decide upon a location for your data, separated into one for "live" or working data (the purpose simply being to ensure it is properly backed up) and the other for a sub-set of formally "published data" which has to be available for at least ten years after its publication.
  3. Use 2 to gather metadata (see 6-14 below) and in return get a DOI representing the location of the combined metadata + data, from a suitable registration authority such as DataCite.
  4. Quote this DOI(s) in the article describing the results of analysing the data and presenting hypotheses, and conversely once the article itself is allocated its own DOI from a registration authority such as CrossRef, update the metadata in item 3 so as to achieve a bidirectional link between the data and its narrative (and we assume that DataCite and CrossRef will also increasingly exchange the metadata they each hold about the items).
  5. Add both the data and the article DOIs to any institutional CRIS or current research information system (parenthetically, I regard this last stipulation as rather redundant if items 3 and 4 are working effectively, but its a good interim measure whilst the overall system matures).

So, should step 2 be included if the data itself is inextricably intertwined with the narrative and cannot be separated? The slightly surprising advice I would suggest is yes! And the answer is that it IS possible to generate metadata (data about the, possibly entwined, data) which CAN be processed in such a step. What forms would such metadata take?

  1. Identification of the researcher(s) involved. This would nowadays take the form of an ORCID (Open Research and Collaborator Identifier).
  2. Identification of the hosting institution where the data has been produced. There is currently no equivalent to an ORCID for institutions, but it is very likely to come in the future.
  3. A date stamp formalising when the (meta)data is actually deposited.
  4. A title for the project being described. Here we see a blurring between the narrative/article and the data; a title is the shortest possible description of the narrative/article, and it may also apply to the data object(s) or it could have its own title.
  5. A slightly fuller abstract of the project being described. Here we see further blurring between the narrative and data objects.
  6. One can include "related identifiers", in particular the DOIs of any other relevant articles that might have been published which may expand the context of the data, and also the DOIs of any other relevant datasets which may have been allocated in step 2 above.
  7. It is also beneficial to include "chemical identifiers". These can take the form of InChI strings and InChI keys, which allow discretely defined molecular objects which were the object of the research to be tracked and which relate to both the narrative and any other data objects.
  8. If specific software has been used to analyse data, it too can be included as a "related identifier" (e.g. [1]
  9. Potentially at least, if a well-defined instrument has been involved, it too could be included with its own "related identifier". With both 13-14, other issues may need addressing, such as versioning etc, but this no doubt will be sorted in due course.
  10. etc.

So items such as 6-14 can be collected and sent to e.g. DataCite with a DOI received in return as part of item 2 of the RDM processes. No "pure" data need be involved, only metadata. Nonetheless such metadata can only increase the visibility and discoverability of the research, as illustrated in how such metadata can be searched for the components described above.

References

  1. H.S. Rzepa, "KINISOT. A basic program to calculate kinetic isotope effects using normal coordinate analysis of transition state and reactants.", 2015. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19272

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Chemical IT | No Comments »