zoterobib adds "DOI.org (Crossref)"

edited 20 days ago
thanks a lot for zbib.org service.

just a minor issue: there's some extraneous text "DOI.org (Crossref)" for the following publication:

https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W17-1-2019

Abate, D., and A. Murtiyoso. “BUNDLE ADJUSTMENT ACCURACY ASSESSMENT OF UNORDERED AERIAL DATASET COLLECTED THROUGH KITE PLATFORM.” ISPRS - International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, vol. XLII-2/W17, Nov. 2019, pp. 1–8. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W17-1-2019.

I've also tried the stand-alone version of Zotero and the extraneous text now is only "Crossref":

Abate, D., and A. Murtiyoso. “BUNDLE ADJUSTMENT ACCURACY ASSESSMENT OF UNORDERED AERIAL DATASET COLLECTED THROUGH KITE PLATFORM.” ISPRS - International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, vol. XLII-2/W17, Nov. 2019, pp. 1–8. Crossref, doi:10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W17-1-2019.

I've checked the metadata deposited at CrossRef and I don't see where Zotero is pulling that info -- there are lots of "CrossRef" but none as a property or field value:

http://doi.crossref.org/servlet/query?pid=fgnievinski@gmail.com&id=10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W17-1-2019&format=info

Can you help me confirm this is not something with the publisher?

Thanks!
-FGN.
  • which citation style (it gets imported into the "Library Catalog" field by zbib which is rarely cited but can be)
  • edited 18 days ago
    sorry, I forgot to mention, the style was MLA 8th ed., zbib's default?

    I've tried other online citation generators and the extraneous text is not present.

    thanks!
  • @bwiernik -- I'd like a second opinion on this:
    MLA picks up the Library Catalog field for items with a URL -- this makes sense for things like JSTOR, EBSCO, and Proquest, but not in cases like the above. I think you're using "archive" for APA for this?
    I'm disinclined to put all the database names into archive from the translators, so not sure what to do about getting the database into MLA as required but not getting unneeded catalog info like the above.
  • APA quite explicitly does not want things like EBSCO or JSTOR—standard academic databases—cited, only more specialized databases with exclusive access to the item (e.g., so an institutional repository, a museum digital archive, ProQuest Theses, etc.). That’s why I used archived and not source.

    MLA’s use case better fits Library Catalog/source, than archive. I think the best solution might be to reduce the number of cases where library catalog information is saved in source. It should be the source of the item full text, not the item metadata. So, I don’t think CrossRef or Zotero are useful things to save there.
  • @dstillman -- thoughts on removing LibraryCatalog from more translators? I think bwiernik is right, but might make it harder to track metadata provenance unless this is captured otherwise.
  • Do we want a separate field for the translator/service used? If so, we'd probably want to try to migrate a hard-coded list of existing values (e.g., "Zotero") to that.

    It is rather useful for troubleshooting to see that, e.g., some metadata was just extracted from a PDF rather than retrieved by identifier, or that something was saved with the EM translator rather than a more specific translator.
  • I think a separate field for data source/translator (not mapped to a CSL variable) would be good.

    MLA’s requirement is a bit frustrating and confusing—why would a reader care which standard access database was used. I think Library Catalog mapped to CSL source is probably the best use for that, even if it potentially creates with other legitimate uses of the Library Catalog and Call Number fields (such conflicts are probably very rare). We might consider more regularly filling in the Archive and Archive Location fields for more limited databases.
  • thanks everybody for weighing in
  • Agree with bwiernik, let's keep the data somewhere.
    Dan -- can we already do this in translators and move it to Extra or is that too messy?

    Also, trying to think about naming for the field. "Source" is the CSL variable for library catalog, so not liking that. Translator is super confusing. Maybe "Imported from"? (same logic as "Added by" in the web interface)
  • I like “Imported from: “
  • @dstillman -- thoughts on this? Can we do this now or do we have to wait for the field updates?
Sign In or Register to comment.