Seeking Assistance with Crossref XML Export in OJS 3.3.x: Prioritizing English Metadata

Hello everyone,

We are encountering an issue with the Crossref XML Export Plugin on our OJS 3.3.x journal websites. Our journals primarily operate in Ukrainian but require the export of metadata in English for submission to Crossref. Despite setting English as the primary language in OJS, the XML exports continue to prioritize Ukrainian, which is not ideal for our Crossref submission process.

We have explored the plugin and OJS settings extensively but have not found a direct way to ensure that English is prioritized in the metadata of the exported XML files. Has anyone else encountered this issue and found a solution? Any guidance on how to configure our system to address this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help!

Hi @Serhii_Nazarovets ,

My name is Isaac Farley, Crossref Technical Support Manager. Can you provide me with a couple of DOIs where the English is set as the primary language in OJS? I need to look into the XML, but I believe that the plugin is not defining any hierarchy to the various languages within the XML that is registered with Crossref, so the Ukrainian and English titles have equal weight in the metadata.

I would say that this mechanism prioritizes both the Ukrainian and English titles, but, you’re right, there is no flag for, say, English to be the primary language (again, I’d need to review the XML, but I believe this to be true based on other examples I have seen).

Thanks in advance,
Isaac

Dear @IFarley,

Thank you for your answer! The thing is that until now, the metadata for our journals (for example) was created manually by a librarian. Therefore, the examples of metadata for our journals in Crossref are not what was created using the plugin.

Now, in connection with changes in the DOI registration manager on the Crossref platform, we would like to customize the Crossref XML Export Plugin. Our idea is that the editorial staff should export the XML file of the new issue, send it to the librarian, and the latter should check the completeness and correctness of the records and import the corresponding XML into Crossref.

We tried just switching the default language (didn’t help), and now we’re going to try clearing the cache in Administrative Functions: Clear Data Caches + Clear Template Cache. :crossed_fingers:

Best Regards
Serhii Nazarovets

Hi @Serhii_Nazarovets ,

I’m investigating and will get back to you by end of the week.

-Isaac

Hi @Serhii_Nazarovets ,

Are the full text versions of your journal articles in question available in both English and Ukrainian?

I don’t see that they are for the examples I am finding on your site, but because this is a public forum and I want to be thorough; so, I am going to address that question first - what to do about an article published online (in full text) that is available in two languages.

If, in your example, the journal articles are published and available in English and Ukrainian, best practice would be to register a DOI for both the English and Ukrainian articles, since the article in English would be cited differently from the article in Ukrainian (and, journal article DOIs are really citation identifiers). In this hypothetical example, the article in English would be register as the primary DOI with only the journal title in English appearing in the XML registered with Crossref, like this:

<titles>

<title>Computer-based Testing: A Necessary Evil or a Sensible Choice?</title>

</titles>

Then, the Ukrainian translation of that journal article in English would be registered with its own distinct DOI and then linked to the DOI of the journal article in English. The title metadata would be registered with us like this (note: I have translated the title using Google Translate, so I don’t know how accurate it is):

<titles> <title>Комп’ютерне тестування: необхідне зло чи розумний вибір?</title><original_language_title language="en">Computer-based Testing: A Necessary Evil or a Sensible Choice?</original_language_title> </titles>

You’d also want to include a relationship in the metadata of the Ukrainian translation to link back to the journal article in English, like this:

<program xmlns="https://www.crossref.org/relations.xsd">
     <related_item>
       <description>Ukrainian translation of an article</description>
       <intra_work_relation relationship-type="isTranslationOf" identifier-type="doi">10.28925/2518-7635.2020.5.10</intra_work_relation>
     </related_item>
  </program>

A full example of the XML needed for a translated article is available on our website. Also, relationships can be set for previously registered DOIs using what we call a resource-only deposit. An example of that for a translated article is available for review here.

Now, on to what I believe is your example: I see this DOI as an example DOI registered with us:
https://doi.org/10.28925/2518-7635.2020.5.10 .

This journal article is only available in English. There is no full-text translation of the journal article in Ukrainian, but you want to add the Ukrainian title to the metadata so it is searchable (right?). Well, you would do that by simply adding the Ukrainian title to the metadata, like this:

<titles>

<title>Computer-based Testing: A Necessary Evil or a Sensible Choice?</title>

</titles>
<titles>
<title>Комп’ютерне тестування: необхідне зло чи розумний вибір?</title>
</titles>

We would assume that the first title in the XML would be the primary title, albeit there is no primary title element in our schema. So, if you’re not following best practice as I outlined above, this is the your best option (and, based on my experience, what OJS 3.3 is doing when you include more than one title in the record).

Furthermore, and, again to focus on your example, the DOI you provided in your message - 10.28925/2518-7635.2020.5.10 - is registered with us with only English metadata, as you can see here: https://doi.crossref.org/search/doi?pid=support@crossref.org&format=unixsd&doi=10.28925/2518-7635.2020.5.10

I’ve extracted some of the article’s bibliographic metadata and am including it below so you can see that it is all registered with Crossref in English (only):

<journal_article>

<titles>

<title>COMPUTER-BASED TESTING: A NECESSARY EVIL OR A SENSIBLE CHOICE?</title>

</titles>

<contributors>

<person_name sequence="first" contributor_role="author">

<given_name>Wojciech</given_name>

<surname>Malec</surname>

<affiliation>John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin Aleje Racławickie</affiliation>

<ORCID>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6944-8044</ORCID>

</person_name>

</contributors>

<jats:abstract xmlns:jats="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/JATS1">

<jats:p>For many students and teachers working in online environments during the current pandemic crisis, the use of computers for educational testing is often an unavoidable predicament. This may be due to the fact that computer- based materials are not merely a useful addition to the learning and teaching resources, but rather the only option available. However, although in some contexts computers may indeed be a significant hindrance to test developers and test takers alike, they actually offer a number of substantial benefits. It is also worth pointing out that, by and large, educational tests delivered through online platforms with the aim of measuring progress and achievement in learning have a lot in common with traditional paper-based tests. This article is thus an attempt at balancing the advantages and disadvantages of computerized testing with a view to finding out whether this mode of testing can be recommended as the preferred choice. Based mainly on a literature review of research and practice in the area of computerized and online educational testing, the paper provides a synthesis of key issues relevant to using electronic devices for the purpose of constructing, administering, and analyzing tests and assessments. In particular, the discussion focuses on the models of test administration, the merits and demerits of computer-assisted testing, the comparability of paper-based and computer-based test scores, as well as selected features of web-based testing systems, such as text-to-items converters, test generators, full-screen delivery mode, automated scoring (and human verification thereof), score reporting, feedback, as well as quantitative analysis of test scores. The article also puts forward some arguments in favour of developing one’s own testing application.</jats:p>

</jats:abstract>

Warm regards,
Isaac

Thank you, @IFarley, for such a detailed and thoughtful comment!

Yes, getting the metadata to correctly indicate the relationship between the original and translated document is an extremely important issue, and it’s great that you’ve shown a solution to this using an article from our journal as an example! Thank you very much for this! :clap:

However, my question about the Crossref XML Export Plugin is a bit different. In the dialogue box, I select the journal articles for which I want to get XML with English metadata.

However, as a result, I still get XML with Ukrainian metadata, despite the fact that the journal has English as the default language.

exportSubmissions.html
exportSubmissions.xml

How can I get an XML file with English metadata?

Unfortunately, these questions about configuring your OJS instance are outside the area of my own expertise.

I wish I could provide some helpful guidance on this for you.

-isaac

Hi @Serhii_Nazarovets,

If your OJS is configured to support multilingual submissions, one of the first things the author will do is select what language a submission is in. This sets the submission’s “primary locale”, and defines for which language the required fields like titles and author names will be mandatory.

Is it possible that these submissions have a different primary locale than you expect/want?

Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team