You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The assumption in the existing Crossref DOI deposit logic is that if a publisher's bothered to enter chapters for a work at all, they must be wanting to register them with Crossref individually - so a lack of a chapter DOI is interpreted as an accidental omission.
Some publishers might want to both record their chapter data (without DOIs) and output chapter-less Crossref XML - but publishers who do want to assign DOIs to all their chapters would still want to see an error message if they'd missed one by accident.
Perhaps what we can do is to create a new output, “Crossref DOI deposit minimised”, that only outputs the book record.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
good idea - maybe we can call it explicitly "CrossRef DOI deposit without
chapters"
also something to think about for Thoth+ Some publishers may wish to have
chapter level DOIs only for edited works but not for monographs - so
different deposits for different types of works. (I think punctum works
like that).
R
On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 10:56 AM rhigman ***@***.***> wrote:
The assumption in the existing Crossref DOI deposit logic is that if a
publisher's bothered to enter chapters for a work at all, they must be
wanting to register them with Crossref individually - so a lack of a
chapter DOI is interpreted as an accidental omission.
Some publishers might want to both record their chapter data (without
DOIs) and output chapter-less Crossref XML - but publishers who do want to
assign DOIs to all their chapters would still want to see an error message
if they'd missed one by accident.
Perhaps what we can do is to create a new output, “Crossref DOI deposit
minimised”, that only outputs the book record.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#551>, or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABFECW6IOOWK6FLFCWKMTN3YSSVOJAVCNFSM6AAAAABC7QPIMOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGEZDIOBYGUZDENY>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
--
Dr Rupert Gatti
Director
Open Book Publishers
tel: +44 1223 331484
skype: jrupertjg
www.openbookpublishers.com
Related but different use case raised by @amandasramalho : a work might contain some chapters which need to have DOIs assigned, and others which don't. The preferred output would be a Crossref record containing only those chapters for which a DOI had been entered in Thoth (the current output fails assuming that the empty DOIs were errors, and the proposed new output would omit chapters entirely).
Perhaps it'd be better to simply exclude chapters that don't have a DOI and not assume the omission is an error altogether, instead of creating a separate deposit file
The assumption in the existing Crossref DOI deposit logic is that if a publisher's bothered to enter chapters for a work at all, they must be wanting to register them with Crossref individually - so a lack of a chapter DOI is interpreted as an accidental omission.
Some publishers might want to both record their chapter data (without DOIs) and output chapter-less Crossref XML - but publishers who do want to assign DOIs to all their chapters would still want to see an error message if they'd missed one by accident.
Perhaps what we can do is to create a new output, “Crossref DOI deposit minimised”, that only outputs the book record.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: