using the DataCite Export Plugin it does export data, but it is missing valuable data. Find below the XML of the exported data: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <resource xmlns="http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-3" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:jats="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/JATS1" xmlns:ai="http://www.crossref.org/AccessIndicators.xsd" xsi:schemaLocation="http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-3 http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/metadata.xsd"><identifier identifierType="DOI">10.21240/mpaed/01/2000.03.17.X</identifier><creators><creator><creatorName>de Witt, Claudia</creatorName></creator></creators><titles><title>Medienbildung für die Netz-Generation</title></titles><publisher>Pädagogische Hochschule Zürich und Sektion Medienpädagogik der DGfE</publisher><publicationYear>2000</publicationYear><dates><date dateType="Submitted">2016-05-23</date><date dateType="Accepted">2016-05-23</date><date dateType="Issued">2000-03-17</date><date dateType="Updated">2016-10-09</date></dates><language>de</language><resourceType resourceTypeGeneral="Text">Article</resourceType><alternateIdentifiers><alternateIdentifier alternateIdentifierType="publisherId">1-1-2</alternateIdentifier></alternateIdentifiers><relatedIdentifiers><relatedIdentifier relatedIdentifierType="DOI" relationType="IsPartOf">10.21240/mpaed/01.X</relatedIdentifier></relatedIdentifiers><sizes><size>1-12 Seiten</size></sizes><rightsList><rights rightsURI="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0">Dieses Werk steht unter der Lizenz Creative Commons Namensnennung - Nicht-kommerziell - Keine Bearbeitungen 4.0 International.</rights></rightsList><descriptions><description descriptionType="Abstract">Die Autorin beschreibt eingangs die Generation der 4- 29Jährigen als die "Netz-Generation", die den Umgang mit interaktiven Medien bereits in der Kindheit einübt. Sie stellt zwei Theorien zu den Konsequenzen der Nutzung von Internet und Multimedia für die Entwicklung junger Menschen dar, indem sie die Thesen des amerikanischen Forschers Tapscott mit Opaschowski vergleicht. Während der Erstgenannte euphorisch meint, die Kinder würden zu Eigenständigkeit und vielseitigen Kompetenzen herangebildet, befürchtet der deutsche Forscher Folgen für die psychosoziale Reife durch Beliebigkeit, Reizüberflutung und Mangel an Entspannung. Im folgenden legt die Autorin dar, welche Merkmale der Postmoderne die "Netz-Kids" aufweisen. Sie verdeutlicht dabei die negativen Konsequenzen, die sich ergeben, wenn die heranwachsende Generation mit Medien experimentiert, deren Gefahren sie noch nicht einzuschätzen vermag. Abschließend beschreibt sie die Aufgabe der pädagogischen Medienbildung im Sinne eines nicht nur experimentellen, sondern auch reflektierten Umgangs mit Medien.</description><description descriptionType="SeriesInformation">MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, Heft 1: Medienkompetenz</description></descriptions></resource>
As you can see there is no volume or issue mentioned, nor even the name of the journal. Turning off the DOI for the parent issue does not help either.
Just a quick answer by myself: The plugin obviously does all it should be doing, and probably uses all fields that DataCite accepts within the kernel-3 scheme. The development option would be to implement the kernel-4 scheme.
volume or issue are not supported in DataCite metadata. For the name of the journal please use the publisher attribute. This is true for schema 3 and the just released schema 4.
Thanks a lot. Good to have you here. Last night I went through the code of the plugin and found the line where it says that the publisher attribute gets filled with the journal’s name if no publishing institution is given (setup step 1). This what I did and updated all DOI records.
So all is fine.
@mfenner, I’m curious about the discrepancy here. The application logic is to use the publishing institution’s name by default, or use the journal title if the publishing institution’s name is missing. The suggestion above is that the journal title should appear in the publisher element. Can you comment?
Can you please explain what you mean by “application logic”? The documentation for the DataCite Metadata Schema explains the publisher field as:
The name of the entity that holds, archives, publishes prints, distributes, releases, issues, or produces the resource. This property will be used to formulate the citation, so consider the prominence of the role.
The above means that there is some flexibility in what can be put in the publisher field. But because this field is used to formulate the citation, I would give the journal title priority over the publishing institution (as citation styles for journal articles basically always include the journal title, but only sometimes the publisher name).
At least that was what the comment in the code suggested. I originally had put a string into the field “institution” in setup step 1 and that was taken as publisher for the DOI records. As our journal is not literally run by a publisher (my institution just acts as one, but is not registered and does not want to appear as one) I preferred to have at least shown the name of journal somewhere in the data.
The tricky point is that, once you run a journal as a true publisher the whole DataCite DOI approach will not be sufficient. As you would want to display the name of the publisher AND the name of the journal.
All in all I am indeed a little disappointed over the lack of datafield in the DataCite scheme. I had hoped to be able to deliver more detailed data from our journal. But hey, we get the DataCite DOIs for free.
In OJS 2.4.x, the DataciteExportDom inherits from DOIExportDom:
This is where the Journal’s “Publishing Institution” setting is preferred to the “Journal Title”.
If the logic you describe (always preferring the Journal Title in our exports) should spark a change in the way OJS works, we will want to override this inheritance with a DataciteExportDom::getPublisher() implementation.
Thanks. We will also discuss this at DataCite. The current limitation is that we don’t have a field for journal title in the DataCite metadata, as most content in DataCite is not journal articles, but research data or gray literature. My suggestion is a pragmatic one, but we need to think about how DataCite metadata can better support the metadata used for journal articles.
We now changed it, the publisher element to be the journal name. This means that all OJS journals using DataCite will be affected with this change – their future data will eventually differ from what they were registering till now. Do you see it as correct for now or would you recommend to stay with the old solution and not introduce these changes now, till the DataCite haven’t figured something else?
Hi, Martin:
FWIW, publications in my area (linguistics) often contain a great deal of primary source material. We don’t always see a sharp line between articles / gray lit / datasets, and are working hard to give (DataCite) DOIs to legacy publications in order to improve re-use. I independently came to the same conclusion (use publisher as journal name, then use rights holder as the publisher). However, in the long run,it would make sense to be able to include a second Title element with titleType of “Journal”, “Series”, or some such, no?
Doug
I agree that this needs some work. There are also related issues, e.g. that Publisher is a free-text field and can’t take an optional identifier (in this case for example an ISSN). The bigger issue is that DataCite metadata don’t have the fields often needed for citing literature, e.g. volume, issue, pages. You could of course argue that these are no longer needed in a digital age, but it means that the formatted citation is incomplete.
@mfenner Are there any perspectives that DataCite might add these missing fields to their scheme? DataCite DOIs are used in many different contexts (repositories, archives, journals, etc), and their users would certainly be happy to see a more complete and compehensive circulation of their metadata.
The DataCite Metadata Working Group decides on what goes into the schema, based on suggestions by users. A nice email to the group co-chairs explaining the OJS use case and current limitations of the schema would certainly be helpful. Contact me at mfenner@datacite.org for details.
