Appropriate DOI to use in Crossmark new_edition and withdrawal update types

Crossref Services Crossmark
1

My organization wants to start adding Crossmark metadata to our Crossref XML deposit for books. The only Crossmark update types we will be using, following the Main schema crossref5.3.1.xsd schema (sorry, can’t include a link - because I’m a new member on this forum maybe?) are new_edition for new editions, and withdrawal for books that have been withdrawn from our catalog.

I have questions about the appropriate DOI to include in the Crossmark metadata for both new_edition and withdrawal.

Here is some draft XML for an update type of new_edition. In this example, this is a first edition of a book that has been superseded by a new second edition.

<crossmark>
    <crossmark_version>2</crossmark_version>
    <crossmark_policy>10.1126/science.aar3646</crossmark_policy>
    <updates>
         <update type="new_edition" date="2023-04-04">10.11647/OBP.0098</update>
    </updates>
    <custom_metadata>
         <ai:program name="AccessIndicators">
         <ai:free_to_read />
         <ai:license_ref>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ai:license_ref>
         </ai:program>
     </custom_metadata>
</crossmark>

The DOI that I’ve included here in the <update> tag is that of the second edition.

It seems logical to me that the DOI included here in the <update> tag would be the DOI of the second edition, rather than the first, since the DOI of the first edition is already contained elsewhere in the Crossref XML output. However, the schema documentation says that DOI should be: “The DOI of the content being updated (e.g. corrected, retracted, etc.)”

As I read that explanation, the content “being updated” is the first edition, not the second edition. So should I include the first edition’s DOI here, rather than the second edition’s?

Or have I misunderstood this, and the Crossmark metadata should actually be included on the second edition (with the DOI of the first edition in the <update> field), rather than including Crossmark metadata on the first edition?

For update type withdrawal, I’m not sure whether or not it should include a DOI. In this case, there is no new edition, so there’s only one DOI available - that of the work being withdrawn - but it is also, in fact, the DOI of the work “being updated”, following the definition from the schema. Should this DOI thus be included in the Crossmark metadata?

As an additional note to the Crossref team, it would be wonderful to have more examples of Crossmark implemention for book metadata as part of your best-practice-examples repo. I was able to find a number of examples there of Crossmark implementation, but none specifically cover what I’m trying to do.

Thanks in advance for any help!

2

Hello @brendan_oconnell,

Thank you for your forum post.

Firstly, you are correct about the addition of links in the post, this is restricted for first time posters and so you should now be able to include links moving forward.

Secondly, if an update is made then the nature of the update (retraction notice, new edition etc) is registered under a new DOI, metadata and landing page.

So that update section you pasted above would be included in the new DOI that is registered, in your case the new edition, and the DOI in the update section would actually be the original DOI.

Then when you click on the Crossmark button against the original DOI, it would show that there was a new edition and it would link to the new edition DOI in the Crossmark widget.

It does seem a little bit backwards that this is how it is linked but this is because the new registration can happen referencing a DOI that is already registered with us. If it were the other way around and you are adding the new edition DOI in the XML update element, the DOI might not have been registered with us yet which would fail the deposit.

I also totally agree that there should be more Crossmark examples in the best practice XML sample repository, I will contact my colleague in charge of this to see if we can get more added.

I hope this helps and if you have any further question or queries on this then please do not hesitate to reply to this post.

Many thanks,
Paul

3

Hello @pdavis,

Thanks for this detailed response - this is exactly what I was looking for. I now understand everything I need to know for update type new_edition, but just to make sure I understand correctly for withdrawal, here’s an example withdrawal output:

       <crossmark>
            <crossmark_version>2</crossmark_version>
            <crossmark_policy>10.1126/science.aar3646</crossmark_policy>
            <updates>
              <update type="withdrawal" date="2024-02-22">10.11647/obp.0300</update>
            </updates>
            <custom_metadata>
              <ai:program name="AccessIndicators">
                <ai:free_to_read />
                <ai:license_ref>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/</ai:license_ref>
              </ai:program>
            </custom_metadata>
          </crossmark>

Is this correct in that the DOI of the book that has been withdrawn should be included in the
<update> tag? I see in the schema that the DOI field is optional, so I wasn’t 100% sure whether to include this. Thanks!

4

Hello @brendan_oconnell,

Thanks for the reply.

That looks good to me and yes the DOI of the book content which is being withdrawn. The DOI in the <update> element should be required if the <updates> element is included.

The <updates> element itself is optional as you need to add the <crossmark> element when registering a policy page for Crossmark and you wouldn’t want to have to register an update if you are only wanting to register the policy page.

I hope this helps, if you have further questions then do let me know.
Many thanks,
Paul

5

Hi @pdavis,

Thank you, this answers all of my questions! Really appreciate your help explaining this.