<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">CrossRef metadata is not the same as DataCite metadata and Nature publishing group requires that data be available to reviewer’s, so you must tell them what the data is. If you give them a CrossRef DOI they will say it is not data. The BCO-DMO data center is currently having this issue, though they are working to resolve the issue pretty hard.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 18, 2016, at 7:57 PM, David Palmer <<a href="mailto:davidpalmer00@gmail.com" class="">davidpalmer00@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">How to understand Nature's dislike of CrossRef DOI? Presumably the author has included the CrossRef DOI in his article for his research data. So at this point how does the CrossRef metadata on the research data DOI come into play?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">thanks</div><div class="">David Palmer</div><div class="">University of Hong Kong</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br class="">
------------------------------<wbr class="">------------------------------<wbr class="">----------<br class="">
<br class="">
Message: 1<br class="">
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 16:22:05 -0600<br class="">
From: Ruth Duerr <<a href="mailto:ruth.duerr3@gmail.com" class="">ruth.duerr3@gmail.com</a>><br class="">
To: "Research Data, Access and Preservation" <<a href="mailto:rdap@asis.org" class="">rdap@asis.org</a>><br class="">
Cc: "<a href="mailto:rdap@mail.asis.org" class="">rdap@mail.asis.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:rdap@mail.asis.org" class="">rdap@mail.asis.org</a>><br class="">
Subject: Re: [Rdap] CrossRef or Other DOIs for Data Sets<br class="">
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:F0C9E4E9-B47E-4FAB-8C3C-B0E3218A3879@gmail.com" class="">F0C9E4E9-B47E-4FAB-8C3C-<wbr class="">B0E3218A3879@gmail.com</a>><br class="">
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br class="">
<br class="">
But it should be noted that some publisher's, most notably the Nature Publishing Group, does not like accepting articles where the data cited uses a Cross-ref DOI, just due to the metadata issue (no comment on the justifiability of that).<br class="">
<br class="">
Ruth<br class="">
<br class="">
Sent from my iPad<br class="">
<br class="">
> On Sep 13, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Hutchinson, Alvin <<a href="mailto:HUTCHINSONA@si.edu" class="">HUTCHINSONA@si.edu</a>> wrote:<br class="">
><br class="">
> Does anyone feel strongly about using (or not using) a certain flavor of DOI for research data sets?<br class="">
><br class="">
> We are the CrossRef registration agency for the Smithsonian and we?ve been doing publications for years but lately have been approached by scientists who want a DOI both for link permanence and citability.<br class="">
><br class="">
> Would anyone recommend against using CrossRef in favor of another DOI type? And if so, which one(s)?<br class="">
><br class="">
><br class="">
> Please pardon my ignorance and let me know if there?s something obvious I am missing.<br class="">
><br class="">
> Thanks,<br class="">
><br class="">
> Alvin<br class="">
><br class="">
><br class="">
> Alvin Hutchinson<br class="">
> Smithsonian Libraries<br class="">
> <a href="tel:202.633.1031" value="+12026331031" class="">202.633.1031</a><br class="">
><br class="">
></blockquote></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Rdap mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Rdap@mail.asis.org" class="">Rdap@mail.asis.org</a><br class="">http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/rdap<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>