Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Duplicate MagIC contributions #552

Open
njarboe opened this issue Jan 8, 2022 · 8 comments
Open

Duplicate MagIC contributions #552

njarboe opened this issue Jan 8, 2022 · 8 comments

Comments

@njarboe
Copy link
Member

njarboe commented Jan 8, 2022

A list of contributions that have been found to have duplicates:

A least one contribution recently published:
Rais et al, 1996 has two versions. 19405 and 18393

PINT08 fix - Riisager & Perrin 1999(19414) or Riisager, et al. 1999(17466) are duplicates. Strangely one of the Riisagers is dropped from the author list when the info is retrieved from DataCite, but there are three authors on the paper as referenced by the paper doi: 10.37570/BGSD-1999-46-07

PINT08 fix - Bucha 1968: 19420 and 17338 should be merged.

"PINT " fix - Tanguy 1975: 19433 and 19431 should be merged.

other duplicates:
PINT08 fix - Brandt 2009: 19419 and 17267 should be merged. 19419 cannot be published at the moment due to BinInt problem.

@christeanne
Copy link

christeanne commented Jan 12, 2022

external_database_id: "PINT " typo fix

Needs to be merged:

  • Shaw 1974: Contribution 19435 and 19085

  • Böhnel et al. 2003: Contribution 18550 and 19436

  • Hill & Shaw 1999: Contribution 19441 and 19170

  • Carlut & Quidelleur 2000: Contribution 19442 and 18401

@rminnett
Copy link
Member

rminnett commented Jan 13, 2022

These are merged now:

The notebook that does the merging still needs to be checked carefully since the changes are difficult to reverse - I'll see if I can add some additional checks to make it a bit more robust.

@christeanne
Copy link

christeanne commented Jan 14, 2022

external_database_id: "PINT " typo fix

Needs to be merged:

  • Tanaka (1990): 19446 and 18471 and 18915
  • Strangway et al. (1968): 19447 and 17439
  • Cottrell & Tarduno (1999): 19448 and 13239
  • Tanaka (1980): 19451 and 18767
  • Riisager et al. (2001): 19452 and 18898

@njarboe
Copy link
Member Author

njarboe commented Jan 14, 2022

The new ones Christeanne are creating seem to be all creating new contributions instead of adding new versions to an old one.

@christeanne
Copy link

The new ones Christeanne are creating seem to be all creating new contributions instead of adding new versions to an old one.

The Laj and Kissel (1999) contribution that I uploaded updated the preexisting versions as expected, but all of the other contributions in the "PINT " list created an entirely new version. I have been uploading them all the same way so I'm not sure what's going on!

@rminnett
Copy link
Member

It looks as though it's a bug with matching previous version histories if the new contribution has a DOI assigned using the dx.doi.org link. We allow this as a valid reference and it retrieves the metadata from Crossref, but it doesn't match the old version history if that just had the DOI instead of the link. The fix for now is to try setting the reference to either the DOI or the dx.doi.org link (you might have to try both, it just has to match the previous version history) and check to see if it assigns a new version instead of version 1 before publishing it.

For example, like this:
image

Instead of like this:
image

I'll deploy a fix for this and update all existing contributions that have a dx.doi.org link stored as the reference so both a dx.doi.org link or the DOI itself will work at matching the version history and store the reference as just the DOI.

@christeanne
Copy link

external_database_id: "PINT " typo fix

Needs to be merged:

  • Tanaka et al (1994): 19466 (This is v5, but the most recent contribution from me) and 18697 (This is v6, uploaded on 10/06/2014)
  • Gonzalez et al. (1997): 19463 and 18573

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants