Adopting organizational identifiers (RORs) in existing metadata may not be as hard as we think for DataCite members that only have a few affiliations in their metadata. However, even in these cases, some challenges remain.

Many groups are interested in augmenting their affiliation metadata with RORs and it seems that a list of organization names is the right input to that process... Alas, we know that affiliations are a swamp filled with gotcha's. It turns out that an unexpected (really?) number of organization names resolve to multiple RORs. Actually, almost 800 of them!

Clear and specific community recommendations for FAIR metadata in multiple dialects are rare and necessary for measuring progress towards evaluating and improving metadata in many repositories. We propose an initial set of concepts and an evaluation of the DataCite metadata collection for essential metadata elements that support Findability.

Join the community playing The Metadata Game!

The DataCite metadata model includes rich information about over 18 million items with DOIs. The schema includes at least four elements that describe organizations: publisher, creator, contributor, and fundingReference. Each of these elements has interesting characteristics. Let’s explore them!

Identifying good examples of consistent affiliation information providers within the Crossref community and automating the identification of organizations are important steps towards the goal of assigning identifiers (e.g. RORs) to these organizations.

I recently introduced a simple visualization of data from the CrossRef Participation Reports that provides quantitative insight into how completeness of CrossRef metadata collections with respect to eleven key metadata elements has changed between the backfile and the current record collections.

I recently introduced a simple metric for measuring metadata collection completeness with respect to elements in the CrossRef Participation Reports. The suggestion of this metric immediately led to speculation about relationships between collection size and completeness. Small collections include fewer records – are they more likely to be complete? Publishers with large collections have more resources – do they have more complete metadata?

All scientific communities have been linking research together for many years using references to related work in articles. Recently these communities are exploring options for linking to datasets and software. As part of this effort, the CodeMeta Project recently proposed a vocabulary for metadata for code based on schema.org.

The CrossRef Participation Reports provide a wealth of information about completeness of CrossRef metadata collections and, equally interesting, comparisons between two time periods (backfile and current). These comparisons provide unique opportunities to examine metadata evolution through time. This blog introduces a tool that can be used to visualize this evolution.

California Digital Library (CDL) and Dryad recently announced a partnership to address researcher needs and to “move the needle” on digital data adoption throughout the scholarly research community by working together to understand and respond to researcher needs for high-quality scientific data publishing infrastructures.