fundref on the aap/psp panel: chorus: a collaborative approach to public access

Carol Anne Meyer CrossRef @meyercarol ORCID: 0000-0003-2443-2804

CHORUS A Collaborative Approach to Public Access AAP/PSP 6 February 2014

Today I’m going to be introducing and explaining the new FundRef initiative from CrossRef.

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2443-2804

First just a few words about CrossRef for anyone who isn’t a member or might not be familiar with us as an organization. CrossRef is a not-for-profit membership organization of international scholarly publishers.

A not-for-profit trade association of global scholarly publishers

First just a few words about CrossRef for anyone who isn’t a member or might not be familiar with us as an organization. CrossRef is a not-for-profit membership organization of international scholarly publishers.

CrossRef has 1900 members, representing 4627 publishers

Why is membership growing steadily? Because publishers think that having DOIs will increase their visibility in the scholarly community. We have 1900 voting members, representing 4600 publishers.

5

Members come from 100 countries

Services

Services

•Reference linking

Services

•Reference linking•Cited-‐by linking

http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/1/1/006/


































Services

•Reference linking•Cited-‐by linking•Plagiarism screening

Powered by iThenticate



































Services


•Update identificationPowered by iThenticate



































http://crossref.org/crossmark/AboutGallery.htm



















































Services


•Update identification•Metadata feeds to third parties




































http://www.crossref.org/cms/





































































Services


•Update identification•Metadata feeds to third parties

•Funding identification






















































http://www.crossref.org/fundref/













































































































Now we have 90 affiliates and 2045 libraries

Our community includes Affiliates and Libraries

We have two offices:Lynnfield, MA and Oxford, UK

We have 24 employees

Departments •Technical • Finance & Operations • Marketing & Business Development • Strategic Initiatives • Product Management !

Rev

enue

Tie

rs ($

milli

on) >500

201-500101-200

51-10026-5010-25

5-101-5<1

# of Members

1612151

6443

1210

42

6

The Long Tail of Members

At $50K, 0.32% or 6 members account for 20% At $275, 85% or 1600 members account for 30% !Note that this is a logarithmic scale

Mission

To be a trusted collaborative organization with broad community connections; authoritative and

innovative in support of a persistent, sustainable

infrastructure for scholarly communication.

Improving scholarly communication through community collaboration

6-Word Mission

Intel inside? The engine of scholarly communication?

81%$

11%$

6%$ 2%$

Distribu(on+of+CrossRef+DOIs+by+Content+Type+September+2013+

Journals$

Books$

Conference$Proceedings$

Components$

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

# of CrossRef DOI resolutions or “clicks” each year

(000)

Traffic to publishers’ sites

In other words, traffic generated to publishers by CrossRef DOIs.

• author (s) • journal title • article title • volume • issue • publication

date • ISSN

• page numbers • article IDs • internal identifiers • URL • DOI

Basic CrossRef Metadata

Basic journal citation metadata:

• ORCID • CrossMark

Updates (related CrossRef DOIs) Publication record information

• Text and Data Mining Data • NISO Open Access Identifier

!

Additional metadata

ORCID is the Open Researcher ID CrossMark is our update and version identification service Text and Data Mining is the artist previously known as Prospect

Just a word on this NISO recommended practice: the comment period recently ended, and it is fairly simple. It recommends two tags “free_to_read” and “license_ref”, and they can be further modified by effective dates to accommodate embargo periods. !CrossRef participates on the group and is committed to implementing supporting the resulting data

• Funder Name • Funder Identifier • Award Number

Additional metadata

ORCID is the Open Researcher ID

A standard way of reporting funding sources for published scholarly research

Launched May 2013

FundRef launched in May 2013 to a great response. FundRef’s purpose is pretty simple - it has been developed to provide a standard way of reporting funding sources for published scholarly research. I’m going to start by covering why this is important.

For further reading

http://fundref.crossref.org/docs/funder_kpi_metadata_best_practice.html

http://fundref.crossref.org/docs/funder_kpi_metadata_best_practice.html

The Problem

Let’s take a look at some sample articles. Many journals and other publications include the authors’ acknowledgement of funding sources, but where and how this information is displayed varies widely. In this article it’s at the end just before the reference section under Acknowledgements, and it tells you the source of the funding and the grant numbers.

...in this PDF article it’s just below the abstract in a section labelled “Funding”. It names the organisation that funded the research, but doesn’t include a grant number.

...and in this one it’s at the end again in the acknowledgements section, and does include an award number. As you can see the location of funding information varies from publication to publication - sometimes in the metadata, sometimes with the references or only in the full text behind a paywall. !And it’s not just the placement of this information on the page, it’s also how it is formatted and displayed.

There are a couple of issues with the formatting of funding information in publications. One is that it’s mostly very hard to retrieve in any technical way - if you want to extract this information as part of the article’s metadata, or to search on it you will struggle because many publishers don’t mark this information up in their XML.!Here’s an article with funding information at the top with the other metadata. It has its own section and heading, so it stands out to the reader browsing the page, but if you look at the XML all of the information is grouped together as free text in a paragraph tag. This is not helpful to a machine or search engine that might be looking for this information.

<fn fn-type="financial-disclosure"> <p>This work was supported in part by NIH

grant R01 GM094800B to G.J.J., a gift to Caltech from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and a stipend

from the Bayerische Forschungsstiftung to M.P. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and

analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.</p>

</fn> </fn-group>

</back> </article>

There are a couple of issues with the formatting of funding information in publications. One is that it’s mostly very hard to retrieve in any technical way - if you want to extract this information as part of the article’s metadata, or to search on it you will struggle because many publishers don’t mark this information up in their XML.!Here’s an article with funding information at the top with the other metadata. It has its own section and heading, so it stands out to the reader browsing the page, but if you look at the XML all of the information is grouped together as free text in a paragraph tag. This is not helpful to a machine or search engine that might be looking for this information.

<body> ... <sec> <title>Funding</title> <p>This work was supported by the <grant-sponsor xlink:href="http://www.grf.org" id="GS1">Generic Research Foundation</grant-sponsor>, the <grant-sponsor xlink:href="http://www.energy.gov" id="GS2">Department of Energy</grant- sponsor> Office of Science grant number <grant-num rid="GS2">DE-FG02- 04ER63803</grant-num>, and the <grant-sponsor xlink:href="http://www.nih.gov" id="GS3">National Institutes of Health</grant-sponsor>. </p> </sec> </body>

And even when publishers do tag up funding information in their XML, as in this example, there are still problems. The tags are likely to vary from publisher to publisher - this publisher uses “Grant Sponsor” and “Grant Num”. Another might use “Funding Source” and “Award Number”. And not all publishers are making this information mandatory on submission, so there will be gaps where authors leave out grant numbers. !!On top of this there’s the lack of standardization in naming of the funding bodies themselves...

http://www.grf.org

http://www.energy.gov

http://www.nih.gov

Why does this matter?

So why is this important? Without any central database or standard way to store or search this data, all of the stakeholders struggle to get the information they need to fully analyze the outputs of funded research, and this impacts funding bodies, publishers and institutions. And any kind of large-scale analysis is extramely hard without a means to get hold of the data in a machine-readable format

Funding bodies cannot easily track the published output of funding




Publishers cannot easily report which articles result from research supported by specific funders or grants





Institutions cannot easily link funding received to published output





Institutions cannot easily link funding received to published output

Lack of standard metadata for funding sources makes it difficult to analyze or mine the data



National Institutes of Health

NIH? N.I.H.? National Institute of Health?

Abbreviations, misspellings, translations...

When funding information is entered as free-form text by the author you are going to have inconsistencies - people will use abbreviations or alternative names or will misspell things. There’s no guarantee that you’ll be able to match up or de-duplicate the funding bodies and so a search for NIH might not return any publications that had research supported by National Institutes of Health, and so on… Also, NIH itself is ambiguous. Which nations are we talking about?

The Solution

Publishers

Relationship with authors submitting

manuscripts

Established publishing and

peer-review systems

Funders

Relationship with researchers funded by agencies

Established award systems and research management processes

InstitutionsRelationship with

researchers

The public

So FundRef is a collaborative solution to this problem, devised by both publishers and funders. It can benefit publishers, funders, research institutions, researchers, and the public. All parties have an interest in the outcomes of FundRef, and many have well-established processes for recording the distribution of funds and monitoring the research process, and the other for ingesting, processing and publishing the outcomes of the research. The piece that has been missing is the one that links these two sets of processes, and that is where FundRef comes in, recording this link and making it more visible.

That would truly be the holy grail--interoperability between systems at research institutions, publishers, and funding agencies—and transparency to the public. !We are seeing a lot of interest in having this central, standardized store for funding information - it will be a huge benefit to all of those involved in the funding of research and the publicaiton of research outcomes. !There are no fees for FundRef services

FundRef Pilot

We ran a year-long FundRef pilot that ran until March 2013, and involved these organisations - the publishers on the left, and the funding bodies on the right. On successful completion of the pilot project the CrossRef board approved the FundRef service to go into production, which we did with our launch on May 28th.

The FundRef Registry is taxonomy of 5500 funder names.

One of the key things that came out of the pilot and is central to the project is an agreed taxonomy of funding bodies. The FundRef Registry has been created from a list donated to the project by Elsevier, and currently consists of around 5500 international funder names, up 18% since our May 2013 launch. The list data is and will be freely available under a CC0 license waiver. The Registry is updated monthly, and new organizations suggested by publishers or funding bodies themselves are added after curation. This is the list that publishers should use to collect information from authors on submission.

5500 funder names and ID numbers from curated Elsevier SciVal registry, donated to FundRef




Hosted by CrossRef, available under CC0





Updated and extended monthly—






Publishers use this list to ensure consistency






Publishers use this list to ensure consistency


www.crossref.org/fundref/fundref_registry.html


http://www.crossref.org/fundref/fundref_registry.html

To put this into context and explain in more detail how the process works: CrossRef hosts the funder registry which provides standard funder names to publisher submission systems. Publishers ask authors, at submission, to provide the name or names of the funding bodies and accompanying grant numbers. This funding information goes in to publishers’ production systems where it is stored as tagged XML and submitted to CrossRef with all of the other deposited metadata for each piece of content. !Once the funding information is in the CrossRef database it becomes a searchable, either through our search interfaces or via one of our APIs, and publishers, funders, and other interested parties can query on a funding organisation or grant number to discover the resultant publications, or can look up a piece of content using other metadata and find out the funding sources. !Publishers will be able to display this funding information in a structured way. For those publishers who are participating in CrossMark, the funding data will automatically appear in the Record tab of the CrossMark dialogue box. We strongly encourage publishers submitting FundRef information to also participate in CrossMark, as this further standardises the location of the information for readers, but of course it can also be displayed on the publisher’s site in metadata and full text.

FundRef Registry


FundRef Registry

Publisher

Submission System

Grant Number

Funder


FundRef Registry

Publisher

Submission System

Grant Number

Funder Production Systems


FundRef Registry

Publisher

Submission System

Grant Number


CrossRef Database & Query APIs


FundRef Registry

Publisher

Submission System

Grant Number


CrossRef Database & Query APIs

Funders Researchers Institutions Publishers

SHARE


DOI

Funding Source

Award Number

But the key piece is that the funding information is now centrally stored in the CrossRef database and can be queried. These three pieces of information - the DOI, the funding source or sources and award numbers are tied together in the metadata, making each of them discoverable via any of the other. !Taking this a step further, once this information is in the CrossRef database and ORCIDs are also being deposited, you have a scenario in which you can look up a researcher, find their publications, and see how their research was funded, or look up a grant number, see its associated DOIs and which researchers contributed to those publications. I’ll come back to querying the data later….!![Note: in the future if funders decide to assign CrossRef DOIs to grants, we could relate ORCIDs directly with awards in addition to go through a published document.

Submission Workflow1. Collect funding data from authors on submission using

FundRef Registry taxonomy

The first thing that publishers need to do is collect the funding data from authors when they submit their paper. Submission of grant numbers should be encouraged but isn’t mandatory, and of course the author will need to be able to submit multiple grant numbers and multiple funders. There will need to be an option for “no funding source” and also the opportunity for authors to select “other” and input the name of the organization if their source isn’t found in the Registry. If they do this, the name they input will be stored in the CrossRef metadata and will be added to a list to be verified and added to the Registry. !!ejournal press announced their fund ref integration in November.

Workflow Issues1. Collect funding data from authors on submission using

FundRef Registry taxonomy

http://www.crossref.org/fundref

The funder name that the author submits should come from the FundRef Registry and should be the standardised version of that name. In our FundRef Search we use an auto-complete function as the user types.

http://www.crossref.org/fundrefregistry

http://livepage.apple.com/

ImplementationWidget - http://labs.crossref.org

We’ve also built a widget that you can drop into your submission pages to collect this information. The widget always references the most up to date version of the registry so you won’t need to worry about downloading the file unless you are wanting to parse backfile information for deposit. The widget is available on the CrossRef Labs page, where you can also download the code if you’re interested in making use of it.

http://labs.crossref.org

Submission System

Grant Number


Implementation2. Pass funding data from submission system to production

systems

Publisher

So once you’ve integrated the Registry to allow you to collect funding body names from authors, you will then need to make sure that your production systems can ingest this additional data from your submission systems, ready to be deposited with CrossRef.... this may require some changes to ensure that you can load the additional metadata. !

Submission System

Grant Number



systems

Publisher

Editorial Check

Of course that’s how the process was designed.!!Back in the real world, it turns out that about 20% of the funder-article relationships that have been deposited are not in the registry. !!The!

Submission System

Grant Number



systems

Publisher

Editorial Check

So once you’ve integrated the Registry to allow you to collect funding body names from authors, you will then need to make sure that your production systems can ingest this additional data from your submission systems, ready to be deposited with CrossRef.... this may require some changes to ensure that you can load the additional metadata. !

The second issue, as I think Mark will mention, is that funding agencies are eager to see FundRef data populated and associated with publication records. So by definition, capturing the data at submission means that there is a pipeline delay for FundRef data being associated with published literature as these submissions make their way through the peer review process.

http://labs.crossref.org

If you do have backfile content with funding information that you have already extracted, we’ve put together a tool to help you match the funding names in your content with the FundRef Registry. It uses Google Reconcile and is available on CrossRef Labs at this URL - there’s a really handy tutorial video that will talk you through how to use the tools to add FundRef IDs to your metadata.

http://labs.crossref.org/

Workflow3. Deposit FundRef data with CrossRef

CrossMark participants should deposit FundRef data within CrossMark deposits

CrossMark participation recommended for standard display of funding information

And that’s step three - deposit the funding information with CrossRef. We are strongly encouraging our members to also join CrossMark and submit the funding data as part of their CrossMark deposits. !For CrossMark participants the funding data will automatically appear in the record tab of the CrossMark dialogue box, giving the advantage of standardisation across publisher websites for the reader, and automatically highlighting the publisher’s participation in FundRef.

Workflow3. Deposit funding data with CrossRef

If you do deposit within CrossMark, this is an example of what it will look like. You can see here that were we’ve got a very simple CrossMark deposit - the basic required information, and the FundRef data for one grant from one funding organisation, the National Science Foundation. The funder name and funder identifier are taken from the FundRef Registry, and you’ll notice that these funder identifiers are DOIs, for uniqueness and persistence. The funder name and funder identifier are required, the award number is optional. !!If an author submits a funder name that is not present in the Registry you *can* deposit it with CrossRef without an associated ID. Please don’t try to send us your own internal IDs because they will be rejected. Deposits with funder_names that aren’t in the Registry will be flagged to us and will be reviewed manually before being added to expand the registry. But I would stress that wherever a funder name does appear in the Registry it must be matched and deposited with it’s FundRef Funder ID. If you don’t submit the funder ID numbers your content will not appear in FundRef Search. !!

I should mention at this point that if you are holding off joining CrossMark because you’re working out what additional metadata you will deposit and how to get hold of that metadata, it’s perfectly acceptable to join CrossMark without the additional metadata in order to get FundRef information showing for your content. In this CrossMark example the publisher has supplied publication dates. You don’t have to have any of this extra metadata ready - you can always deposit any additional CrossMark data at a later date, but take advantage of CrossMark to ensure that funding information is prominently displayed,

Look up funding data

http://search.crossref.org/fundref

Then, when this data is in the CrossRef database, institutions, publishers, funders, and other interested parties can search on it, either through our FundRef Search interface or using one of our query APIs. FundRef Search is an interface specifically for looking up funding bodies and seeing papers that have resulted from their grants. If you want to look up award numbers or papers you will need to use CrossRef Metadata Search, which I will come to in a moment.

http://doi.crossref.org/FundRefSearch

Search for funder

FundRef Search directs the user to search using one of the funding body names in the registry. It handles acronyms so NIH will bring up the National Institutes of Health as in this example. You’ll see that countries are listed - which is important because more than one country has a “National Science Foundation”...

Results

Here I’ve used FundRef Search to look up the US NIH. You can see that it has returned a list of articles that have the NIH listed as a funder. In the first result we have the NIH listed as the funder but with no grant number. The second and third results show one grant number and then several. And the fourth article has NIH listed as one of three funding bodies, each with their own related award numbers. !Looking to the left of the screen you can see the hierarchy of funding bodies taken from the Registry. The NIH falls under the US Dept of Health and Human Services, and below are all of the subsidiary funding bodies of the NIH itself. The default results are research funded by the organisation you searched on - but you have the option to include all subsidiary organisations too by checking the box at the top of the list. Then you will see results that list NIH and all of its subsidiary organisations. !We’ve just added this heirarchical browsing in so it’s a little bit of a work in progress and we’re missing the heirarchies for a few organisations, but it should give some really useful options for viewing a wider or narrower group of related funding bodies. !

Search by other metadata

As I said the FundRef Search interface lets you look up on funder names only - this is to allow us to pre-populate the standard names in the FundRef Registry as search terms. If you have other metadata and want to search on something else, you should use CrossRef Metadata Search, which as you might expect searches across all of the metadata in the CrossRef database.

Here I’ve entered a grant number and it has returned the associated journal article.

Or you can enter a CrossRef DOI and get the corresponding article metadata, including the funding information where it’s available.

Or you can enter an ORCID and return that author’s papers with the funding information included. While I’m explaining all of this I must include the obvious caveat: FundRef has been running for a little over 6 months now and while the data is growing we still have relatively little funding information in our database - around 50,000 DOIs have funding data at present, so if you search on a funding body and don’t see any results please don’t be alarmed - as more publishers deposit funding metadata you will start to see these results appear. The same is true of ORCIDs - a relatively small number of publisher depositing ORCIDs at this time, but again this will grow in the course of the year. So we really need our member publishers to join and start depositing as soon as possible in order to make this a useful resource. I hope that these examples give you an idea of the huge potential for discovery that FundRef is going to offer.

• 52,000 + unique documents with FundRef records

• 71,000 + funder-document relationships

• 80% of the funder names from these relationships are in the FundRef Registry

So, how are we doing?

This is up from 28K in October. !90% or 47K of these are unique documents with at least one FundRef name from the registry ! Because some documents have more than one funder, there are actually 71K “relationships”

American Chemical Society American Diabetes Association American Institute of Physics American Psychiatric Publishing American Psychological Association American Physical Society American Society of Neuroradiology Association for Computing Machinery BioMed Central Bioscientifica Copernicus GmBH eLife Sciences Publications Elsevier FapUNIFESP (SciELO) Hindawi Publishing Corporation Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers !

International Union of Crystallography Internet Medical Publishing IOP Publishing Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development Just Medical Media, Ltd. Kowsar Medical Institute Landes Bioscience National Library of Serbia Optical Society of America Oxford University Press Royal Society of Chemistry ScienceOpen Taylor & Francis The Royal Society Wiley-Blackwell

http://www.crossref.org/fundref/fundref_agreement.html

These deposits come from 9 publishers of 30 signed up

These are the CrossRef members who have signed up to FundRef so far (30) - those in bold have also started depositing metadata. Please do ensure that you sign the FundRef agreement before you start depositing so that we can list you as an official participant.

http://www.crossref.org/fundref/fundref_agreement.html

Publishers: sign up now!

FundRef Terms & Conditions: www.crossref.org/fundref

No fees for FundRef deposits

!FundRef is now open for any CrossRef member to join - and we would really like you to! We are seeing a lot of interest in having this central, standardized store for funding information - it will be a huge benefit to all of those involved in the funding of research and the publicaiton of research outcomes. We really want to encourage publishers to sign up sooner rather than later so that we can build up this database of funding information over the coming months. !There are no fees for FundRef deposits - we simply ask that member publishers agree to the of Terms and Conditions, which as I’ve said are available as simple click-through agreement on the CrossRef website. Please do make sure you complete the terms and conditions before you start to deposit. !!Any individual or organization interested in querying the FundRef data can use FundRef Search — which is freely available to anyone. Or, organizations can sign up for one of our query or metadata affiliate accounts and make use of the CrossRef APIs and web interfaces to access that data. !!


• CrossRef (with FundRef ) provides the social and technology standards and practices that makes CHORUS possible.

• CrossRef DOIs directs interested parties to the correct documents

• CrossRef’s existing metadata database will hold data about ORCID, FundRef, Open Access Indicator, Text and Data mining

• CrossRef’s Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and search interfaces will serve these new types of data.

But, what does all this have to do with CHORUS?

• CrossRef staff participate on the Technical Working Groups of CHORUS and SHARE

• CrossRef also has expressed an openness to make its infrastrure available for other public access initiatives.

• CrossRef does not do custom development for projects that are specific to that project and not generalizable to the industry.

Full Disclosure: CrossRef plays the field

www.crossref.org/[email protected]

Thank you!


mailto:[email protected]

fundref on the aap/psp panel: chorus: a collaborative approach to public access

Business

generic research foundation

national institutes