Minting DOIs (relates to UKRI policy)

[John Salter]

Hi,
I’ve had a nagging thought DOIs, publishers and AAMs that I’m hoping you can help me with.

Scenario:

• we have a repository record for a research output. There is already a (publisher-assigned) DOI for the output.
• we are storing the AAM in our repository for this item. This will be open-access, under whatever license we are permitted/have enforced (RRS type stuff).

 

How are you treating the above situation?

• do you create a (repository-assigned) DOI for the record in your repository?
• do you list the repository as the ‘publisher’ of this record in the DataCite metadata used to register the DOI?
• (bonus question) if you are creating a repo-assigned-DOI, are you exposing both DOIs on your landing pages and your OAI-PMH metadata profiles?

 

For some item types (thesis; grey lit) it’s a null question – we hold the VoR and there is no competing DOI.

 

Any working-practices/thoughts/musings/mutterings welcomed 😊

 

Cheers,

John

 

John Salter

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8611-8266

 

White Rose Libraries Technical Officer
IT - Application Support (Research)
University of Leeds

 

[Mick Eadie]

Hi John

We are planning to do this at Glasgow but haven't implemented yet.  So not sure how helpful this is on a practical level!

But we would mint the DOI for the AAM and 'University of Glasgow' would be the publisher.  As an example University of Strathclyde have done similar already e.g.: https://doi.org/10.17868/strath.00084907

I think the answer is yes to exposing both (and potentially others?) via OAI-PMH  - I guess the standard DC schema they would just be another relation?  

I think we would be expecting to model this better when/if there's a new plugin for the latest rioxx v3 schema (https://rioxx.net/profiles/v3-0-final/), so that rioxx3 OAI-PMH profile would cater for multiple pids and let you assign some attributes (e.g. item type) to better explain what resources they are referring to.

another thing that comes to mind is being able to store these DOIs better in eprints using something like https://github.com/eprints/idsidsids  -  we don't have that capability yet we just have the single 'id_number' field for storing the publisher DOI and various other identifier fields like pmcid, isbn etc.

cheers

Mick

[Mick Eadie]

👍

Mick Eadie reacted via Gmail

On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 2:46 PM John Salter <J.Sa...@leeds.ac.uk> wrote:

Thanks Mick,
The initial silence had me a little worried! Glad it was as sensible bit of pondering!

 

The technical points you make (e.g. fields to store the ‘repository DOI’ in) are all reasonably easy to implement, assuming you have some developer resource.

 

Keep your eyes peeled for RIOXX3 news… there might be something heading our way soon.

 

Cheers,

John

 

 

From: eprints-uk...@googlegroups.com <eprints-uk...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Mick Eadie
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 10:02 AM
To: EPrints UK User Group <eprints-uk...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Minting DOIs (relates to UKRI policy)

 

CAUTION: External Message. Use caution opening links and attachments.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EPrints UK User Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to eprints-uk-user-...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/eprints-uk-user-group/d6cb72b2-2da2-4c26-bd0c-9c99a4ecd4f0n%40googlegroups.com.

[Leigh Stork]

Hi John and Mick,

Yes, so far at Strathclyde we've minted more than 20 DOIs for accepted manuscripts that fall under either our institutional rights retention policy or the UKRI green/route 2.  

We mint them in Strathprints and they're listed in 'Deposit Persistent Identifier' on the record (a field in Misc). We then copy/paste the minted DOI back into the Pure record under an 'Other link' with a note that it's the DOI for the AAM. We don't list it as a DOI in Pure because the MODS only captures/sends over one DOI through the connector and we want that to be to the publisher's version. 

It's still pretty early days with this workflow, so we're still feeling our way. There's also (eventually) a conversation the larger repository community needs to have around how we all avoid minting DOIs for co-authored AAMs, and what to do when that happens.  

Cheers,

Leigh Stork

On Monday 20 May 2024 at 16:42:25 UTC+1 j.salter wrote: