Article summary page link from TOC

Software Support
1

Hi all

I’m pretty new to OJS so I apologise if this question has been answered before. One of our editors published her most recent issue. Unlike previous issues, the editorial does not have a hyperlinked title that takes one through to a summary page. Is there a specific setting that enables this?

Many thanks,
Michelle

2

An update - not sure if this will help but I’ve noticed this:

When editing the metadata in OJS, it states that the doi ends in …v5i2.226
When viewing the document pdf, the url ends… aw/article/view/227/289

If these numbers matched (i.e. 226), would this create the summary page?

Thanks,
Michelle

3

Hi @MichelleM,

The numbers in the URL aren’t causing this – that difference is fine.

I’d suggest checking the access settings, if you’ve got subscriptions enabled. It may be that the editorial is marked as subscription-only.

Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team

4

?Thank you @asmecher

I will forward your suggestion to the editor and see if she can check the setting.

Kind regards

MichelleM

5

Hi again

The editor has checked and subscriptions are not active for the editorial so we don’t think that this is the cause. I’m going to have a few browser windows open alongside each other again, to see if anything is obvious between issues. If any other suggestions are possible, we’d be delighted to hear from you.

Kind regards
Michelle Mayer

6

Hi @MichelleM,

Do some of the articles have abstracts, and others not?

Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team

7

Morning!

Comparing all of the editorial documents, they do not have abstracts. Some have keywords and some haven’t. There doesn’t seem to be a pattern at all.

Kind regards
Michelle M

8

Hi @MichelleM,

The two defining factors controlling whether the article title is presented as a link are…

  • If the reader has access (i.e. the content is not subscription-only; there are several settings controlling this but if you’re open access it should not apply)
  • If there’s an entered abstract for the submission.

Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team

9

Hello,

We’re encountering the same problem. Do I understand correctly that if there is no abstract for the article the article title will not be linked?

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Michael

10

Hi @boockmi,

That’s correct – depending on your version of OJS. If there is no abstract, the title will not be linked. (The article landing page that would be linked otherwise will have very little information on it with no abstract to present.)

Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team

11

Thanks. Much appreciated. The DOI would appear there though. And, in the absence of an article landing page, it appears that DOI links will go to the journal home page instead. Correct?

Michael

12

Can somebody help me with this? We have a DOI registered through Crossref that is assigned to a journal article, but the DOI takes users to our OJS home page rather than the article apparently because there is no article landing page. Any ideas for what we should do in this case?

Thanks,
Michael

13

@boockmi, can you share the DOI?

I want to tag this conversation as related, primarily from a developer perspective:

14

After talking with the editor again, we’ve determined that the problem probably has nothing to do with the fact that there is no article landing page. It appears that the reason the Crossref-registered DOI does not link to the article in OJS is that the original article registered with Crossref (10.5399/osu/fp.5.1.3748) was deleted in OJS and then republished. When the article was republished a new DOI and OJS article ID (3893) was created. Crossref doesn’t have any way of knowing that of course. Unfortunately we have four articles where this happened.

It occurs to us that there might be two ways to solve this problem:

  1. We could ask Crossref to change their DOI to the new one or redirect from the old one to the new one. I doubt they’d do this for obvious reasons of persistency.
  2. We could see if OJS allows us to change the OJS article ID to the original one .

Is the latter possible? If not, might there be another solution that we’re not thinking of?

Many thanks,
Michael

15

Assuming you haven’t registered the new articles with Crossref, you can simply change the DOI on the article in OJS.

Go to your DOI PubID plugin settings, and change the option from pattern-based assignment to manual assignment:
User Home → Journal Manager → System Plugins → Public Identifier Plugins → DOI → Settings → Enter an individual DOI suffix for each published item → Save

Go to each article’s metadata, and correct the DOI to be whatever Crossref knows about. Remember: the DOI has permanence, so the fact that the pattern doesn’t match these articles is correct:
User Home → Editor → (search for article) → Edit Metadata → DOI → Save Metadata

Go to back to your DOI PubID plugin settings, and change the option from manual assignment back to pattern based:
User Home → Journal Manager → System Plugins → Public Identifier Plugins → DOI → Settings → (whatever your settings were previously) → Save

You can now use the Crossref plugin to update the existing DOI metadata.

16

Using your instructions, the editor tried to manually edit the DOI in OJS to the one that CrossRef has, but received this error message:

Errors occurred processing this form
The given DOI suffix is already in use for another published item. Please enter a unique DOI suffix for each item.

17

Some possibilities here:

  • 3748 wasn’t really deleted, but was just archived, and it still has the old DOI assigned. If this is the case, open the metadata for this submission, and select “Exclude this article from DOI assignment”
  • 3748 was deleted, but it left orphaned records in the database. If this is the case, you’ll need to check your article_settings table. What values exist for an article_id of 3748, particularly `WHERE UPPER(setting_name) LIKE '%DOI``?
1 Like
18

Can’t thank you enough. Indeed, the problem was that it wasn’t really deleted. There was a version in editing. We wound up re-publishing that version and deleting the published version with the incorrect DOI.

Cheers!
Mike