Create alternative Crossref DOI deposit which excludes chapters

[rhigman]

The assumption in the existing Crossref DOI deposit logic is that if a publisher's bothered to enter chapters for a work at all, they must be wanting to register them with Crossref individually - so a lack of a chapter DOI is interpreted as an accidental omission.

Some publishers might want to both record their chapter data (without DOIs) and output chapter-less Crossref XML - but publishers who do want to assign DOIs to all their chapters would still want to see an error message if they'd missed one by accident.

Perhaps what we can do is to create a new output, “Crossref DOI deposit minimised”, that only outputs the book record.

[rupertgatti]

good idea - maybe we can call it explicitly "CrossRef DOI deposit without chapters" also something to think about for Thoth+ Some publishers may wish to have chapter level DOIs only for edited works but not for monographs - so different deposits for different types of works. (I think punctum works like that). R

…

On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 10:56 AM rhigman ***@***.***> wrote: The assumption in the existing Crossref DOI deposit logic is that if a publisher's bothered to enter chapters for a work at all, they must be wanting to register them with Crossref individually - so a lack of a chapter DOI is interpreted as an accidental omission. Some publishers might want to both record their chapter data (without DOIs) and output chapter-less Crossref XML - but publishers who do want to assign DOIs to all their chapters would still want to see an error message if they'd missed one by accident. Perhaps what we can do is to create a new output, “Crossref DOI deposit minimised”, that only outputs the book record. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#551>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABFECW6IOOWK6FLFCWKMTN3YSSVOJAVCNFSM6AAAAABC7QPIMOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGEZDIOBYGUZDENY> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Dr Rupert Gatti Director Open Book Publishers tel: +44 1223 331484 skype: jrupertjg www.openbookpublishers.com

[rhigman]

Related but different use case raised by @amandasramalho : a work might contain some chapters which need to have DOIs assigned, and others which don't. The preferred output would be a Crossref record containing only those chapters for which a DOI had been entered in Thoth (the current output fails assuming that the empty DOIs were errors, and the proposed new output would omit chapters entirely).

[ja573]

Perhaps it'd be better to simply exclude chapters that don't have a DOI and not assume the omission is an error altogether, instead of creating a separate deposit file