I’m trying to figure out, with no luck so far, how to easily tag citation for an erratum.
We have published article A. Then later article B, which is an erratum and corrects article A, was published. Both articles have their own DOIs.
In PubMed XML I can use
<Object> tags to indicate the exact relation (erratum) between the articles.
How to make that work in crossref XML?
We use in-house system to generate XMLs so we are not bound to any specific system (like e.g OJS) and to its possible limitations.
<intra_work_relation> tags and ‘
relationship-type’ attribute seemed like a good starting point. However, ‘
relationship-type’ does not allow to use “correction”, “erratum” or something like that.
In the documentation I found out about
<crossmark> and all the tags which are allowed inside it. Tagging
<update type="correction" date="xxxx-xx-xx"> etc. inside crossmark should give me what I’m now looking for.
However, based on the documentation, utilization of crossmark requires a lot of work, e.g the publisher needs to add crossmark-logo to all published articles. Is it really so? Is there any easier way to tag XML for a single erratum/correction?
Thank you for your advice,
Thanks for your questions.
The best option for indicating updates like errata and corrections is indeed through the
However, you do not need to utilize the full Crossmark service (logo, policy page, script, etc.) just to add the update metadata. Anyone can submit metadata in that
<crossmark> section of the xml, even if they don’t otherwise take part in the Crossmark service.
The only difference is that, because the
<crossmark_policy> element is strictly required by our schema, and members who don’t utilize the Crossmark service won’t have a Crossmark Policy Page DOI, you can instead insert the DOI that is being updated in the
If you have an example of an item that has been updated, I’ll be happy to walk you through what that would look like in an updated xml metadata deposit. And, if you’d prefer not to give that example in a public forum, you can always email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Great, thanks for the clarification!
DOI for the original article, article A, is 10.5271/sjweh.3993.
Article B, which corrects article A, will have DOI 10.5271/sjweh.4090.
Article B was published online on 30th of March.
I ended up with the following crossmark section for article B. Does it look right? At least Metadata quality check did not complain about it.
<update type="correction" date="2023-03-30">10.5271/sjweh.3993</update>
Yes, that looks great! That would sufficiently indicate the update and create a relationship between those two DOIs.