In the first half of this year we’ve been talking to our community about post-publication changes and Crossmark. When a piece of research is published it isn’t the end of the journey—it is read, reused, and sometimes modified. That’s why we run Crossmark, as a way to provide notifications of important changes to research made after publication. Readers can see if the resesarch they are looking at has updates by clicking the Crossmark logo. They also see useful information about the editorial process, and links to things like funding and registered clinical trials. All of this contributes to what we call the integrity of the scholarly record.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://0-www-crossref-org.libus.csd.mu.edu/blog/crossmark-community-consultation-what-did-we-learn
1 Like
We had a great experience integrating the Scholastica Open Access Publishing Platform with Crossmark. The main piece we’ve talked about in terms of user adoption is helping to educate journal editors about article correction/retraction reporting best practices, because we’ve found that the COPE standard process isn’t immediately intuitive to those who’ve never done it before (e.g., publishing an update notice and then linking it to the article vs only updating the article page). We’re working on a new quick guide blog post that we’ll be sure to share with the community.
Following up on my post above, Scholastica has released a new guide to reporting article corrections and retractions that journals seeking to adopt Crossmark may find helpful: “How to report journal article updates: the policy recommendations and technical practices editors need to know.” The post includes a high-level overview of how Crossmark works and the criteria for joining.
We welcome community feedback or questions about this new guide!
3 Likes