I have published two articles a good high ranking journals. My first published in January has been cited by good journals 5 times, and 7 times all together but crossref is only showing 1 citation.
The second article has been cited twice but showing citations of zero. Is there any reason why this would be? Is this something I need to fix? Google scholar appears to be showing the results accurately.
Thanks a lot!
Hi Dr. Wood. Thanks for your questions.
Crossrefâs Cited-by counts only reflect the number of times a given DOI is matched as being cited by another piece of content that:
is also registered with Crossref and
has references included in the metadata deposited by the publisher when they register its DOI.
Not all scholarly publications are registered with Crossref and not all publishers opt to provide references along with their DOIâs metadata, so we canât claim that our cited-by counts are comprehensive representations of all instances in which a given content item has been cited.
This may explain why you see different results in different services or donât see the results you expect in our service.
If you believe that both the cited and citing works are registered with Crossref, you can let us know the DOIs for each, and Iâll be happy to check whether the citing worksâ publishers have supplied references to us for those items.
Dear Shayn,
Yes some of the citations are registered with Dois. I attach them all below.
A) My article: * Full article: A dialogic technology-mediated model of feedback uptake and literacy
B) Citing article Dois: 1. * https://0-doi-org.libus.csd.mu.edu/10.1080/02602938.2021.1967283
2. * https://0-doi-org.libus.csd.mu.edu/10.1080/02602938.2021.1969637
3. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-6440-0.ch009
4. * https://0-doi-org.libus.csd.mu.edu/10.1080/17439884.2021.1936547
5. * https://0-doi-org.libus.csd.mu.edu/10.1080/02602938.2021.2001430
My second article: * https://0-doi-org.libus.csd.mu.edu/10.1080/02602938.2021.1914544
Citing article 1. * https://0-doi-org.libus.csd.mu.edu/10.1080/02602938.2021.1914544
2. Sustainability | Free Full-Text | Sustaining Synchronous Interaction Effectiveness in Distance Writing Courses: A Mixed Method Study in a KSA University
Is there something I can do so I donât have to update the citations manually every time?
Best wishes,
James
Hi James.
Well, the good news and bad news is that citations canât be updated manually. We can only assert citations when theyâre derived from the references supplied in the DOIsâ metadata by the citing worksâ publishers.
Taylor and Francis registered the DOI for your article - 10.1080/02602938.2020.1852174 - with metadata that corresponds to the following:
Wood, J. (2021). A dialogic technology-mediated model of feedback uptake and literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(8), 1173â1190.
1.When they registered this DOI 10.1080/02602938.2021.1967283 they did supply references in its metadata. This is the reference that most closely matched your work
<citation key="CIT0071">
<journal_title>Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education</journal_title>
<author>Wood J.</author>
<first_page>1</first_page>
<cYear>2021</cYear>
</citation>
The main problem is the first page is given as 1 and not 1173. Iâd guess that the author was citing a pre-publication manuscript which didnât have the final pagination yet. But, the incorrect page number, and lack of any other distinguishing metadata (no volume number, issue number, or article title) prevented our system from establishing that reference as a citation to your article.
<citation key="CIT0030">
<journal_title>Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education</journal_title>
<author>Wood J.</author>
<first_page>1</first_page>
<cYear>2020</cYear>
</citation>
<citation key="CIT0031">
<journal_title>Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education</journal_title>
<author>Wood J.</author>
<first_page>1</first_page>
<cYear>2021</cYear>
</citation>
The metadata for 10.4018/978-1-7998-6440-0.ch009 did not include a reference for your work. In the reference list supplied, which looks to be alphabetical, it skipped right from Winstone to Yorke. Thatâs consistent with the reference list displayed on that workâs landing page Examining Feedback Practices in WIL Subjects: A Case Study | IGI Global
10.1080/17439884.2021.1936547 and 10.1080/02602938.2021.2001430 both have the same situation as items 1 and 2 above. It may be significant that these were all registered by the same publisher.
I can reach out to our contacts at Taylor & Francis and pass along your concerns about these missing citations. If they agree that the references were supplied incorrectly, they can submit updated metadata for the citing worksâ DOIs which will enable our system to assert the citations for your articleâs DOI.
In the case of the second article - 10.1080/02602938.2021.1914544 - the metadata supplied by its publisher corresponds to
Wood, J. (2021). Making peer feedback work: the contribution of technology-mediated dialogic peer feedback to feedback uptake and literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1â20.
10.1080/02602938.2021.1914544 - this is the DOI of the cited article.
10.3390/su132413675 - this one worked correctly. The publisher MDPI supplied a reference with your articleâs DOI directly, which is obviously the most foolproof way of ensuring a citation.
<citation key="ref20">
<doi>10.1080/02602938.2021.1914544</doi>
</citation>
When you query the cited-by count for 10.1080/02602938.2021.1914544 in our system, it shows 1 citation. That citation came from 10.3390/su132413675
I hope that helps clarify. Iâll let you know when I hear back from Taylor and Francis about the four DOIs that cite your first article.
Best,
Shayn
Dear Shayn,
I appreciate your willingness to help individual cases of citations being missing. I wonder if you could take a brief look at this article please: [link removed]
It was cited 2-3 weeks ago in another article in the same journal and yet CrossRef (and Google Scholar) are yet to update.
The citing article is here [link removed]
I thought initially that it may have something to do with the citing article being non-open access.but then I noticed that one can see the references regardless.
Any thoughts?
Edit: apparently I canât send links here, so not sure how to proceed.
Yes, thatâs a spam-prevention feature, though itâs troublesome in a situation like this.
Could you provide the DOIs of the citing and cited articles, just in their 10.xxxx/xxxxx format, without the âhttps://0-doi-org.libus.csd.mu.edu/â appended to the front? That should get past the link restriction.
Sure, I can.
so, the original article is: 10.1080/14623528.2022.2159737
The article doing the citing is: 10.1080/14623528.2023.2248818
Iâve elevated your status here in the community forum @HarryLegg so you can post links. As Shayn said, this is a security feature, as we get a fair number of new users posting spam. Youâre clearly not here for that 
-Isaac
So, not to be too pushy, but did you have a moment to check these?
Thanks!
Sure, thanks for that extra information.
Crossrefâs Cited-by data only reflects the number of times a given DOI is matched as being cited by another piece of content that:
is also registered with Crossref and
has references included in the metadata deposited by the publisher when they register its DOI.
Not all scholarly publications are registered with Crossref and not all publishers opt to provide references along with their DOIâs metadata, so we canât claim that our cited-by counts are comprehensive representations of all instances in which a given content item has been cited. This may explain why you see different citation information in different services or donât see the results you expect in our service.
In this case, the issue is that, while the publisher has already registered the DOI for the citing work - 10.1080/14623528.2023.2248818 - they have not yet supplied any references in its metadata record yet.
So, we cannot assert that 10.1080/14623528.2023.2248818 cites anything at all unless/until they update its record with the references.
Taylor & Francis typically does supply references in their metadata. 89% of their recently published journal articles do have reference metadata. However, only about 15% of DOIs registered for articles in âJournal of Genocide Researchâ have references in their metadata, and none published after 2008 do. You can see how the numbers breakdown by publication year in our API here, if youâre interested.
We canât make citation assertions for content that we donât have references for. Supplying references is optional, so T&F and âJournal of Genocide Researchâ arenât technically doing anything âwrongâ here. But, itâs really unusual for a single journal to have a metadata practice thatâs so out of step with the rest of their publisherâs journals.
If youâre still in touch with the editors of âJournal of Genocide Researchâ Iâd encourage you to bring this to their attention. If youâre unable to get a response from them, let me know, and I can pass it along to our contacts at T&F.
Cheers Shayn, for your comprehensive explanation and help. I donât personally feel comfortable contracting journal editors about that, and would have thought that was more an issue for T&F as you say. Would you mind contacting them please, if you have the time?
Sure, Iâll be happy to reach out to our contacts at T&F. Because the metadata practices of that particular journal are so out-of-step with T&Fâs general metadata practices, I suspect the issue stems from some choices made by that journalâs editors, but I canât know for sure.
At large publishers like that, we generally work with the operations teams, so I can ask them to relay the feedback to the editors of Journal of Genocide Research. But, at minimum, theyâll be able to make sure there isnât some technical issue on the operations side preventing the references from that journalâs articles from being passed along to us.
Thanks very much Shayn, thatâs kind!
Hi Shayn,
Sorry to reply to an older post, but I am having similar troubles.
This recently published article (DOI 10.1080/1031461X.2023.2293837), references one of my book chapters (DOI 10.1007/978-3-031-10849-5_10), however, Crossref hasnât seemed to pick up on the reference. Wondering if you have any advice on this. :slight_smile
Many thanks,
YC
Hey Shayn, any news on this at all? Iâm starting to feel a little disheartened because another article of mine was also cited but it isnât showing either. (Different journal)!
Hi @HarryLegg ,
Can you give us the details for this other article? What is its DOI? And the DOI citing it?
With that information, we can investigate what is going on for this other example.
-Isaac
Hey, of course. Thank you. So the article cited is: 10.1080/25785648.2022.2122142 and the article which cites it is: 10.0.92.225/sn.0223/ctt_nwes01 - It is fully searchable, open access on google, unlike the earlier mentioned article.
Hi @HarryLegg ,
Unfortunately, 10.0.92.225/sn.0223/ctt_nwes01 isnât a Crossref DOI. Can you share that articleâs URL?
-Isaac
Hi @HarryLegg -
I think the correct URL is https://0-doi-org.libus.csd.mu.edu/10.23777/sn.0223/ctt_nwes01 which I can see cites your article and the 10.1080 DOI in question (footnote 32).
This DOI is not a Crossref DOI. Rather, it was registered through one of our fellow registration agencies (RAs), mEDRA. While Crossref accounts for about 95% of worldwide DOI resolutions, we are one of a handful of RAs worldwide, some of which are explicitly regional in focus and coverage. Because each RA maintains its own schemas and databases of metadata, itâs not currently possible to track relationships like citing-cited between DOIs registered through different RAs. If S: I.M.O.N. Shoah: Intervention. Methods. Documentation, the citing journal, ever rehomes its DOIs to Crossref then the citation will be counted in the Crossref citation metrics.
I hope this helps.
Kindly,
âCollin
PS: If you ever want to confirm which RA a prefix is connected with, you can search doi.org/[prefix]; for example, doi.org/10.23777 where you can see:
1 HS_SERV 2016-11-08 17:49:39Z 10.SERV/MEDRA;
Compare to doi.org/10.1080:
1 HS_SERV 2016-09-21 20:45:27Z 10.SERV/CROSSREF;
Thanks - so why donât you guys use a scanner to find citations instead of anything DOI related? I was able to find 2 citations with ease this way, neither of which Crossref has picked upâŚ