Add Crossref support for peer review DOIs

[ewhanson]

Description:
With the addition of internal support for peer review DOIs, support for including these in Crossref metadata exports and deposits is necessary.

It will need to be added only for public peer reviews with proper reviewer identity anonymity taken into consideration (which may already be taken care of).

Required/optional data to include can be confirmed in the Crossref metadata deposit schema documentation.

Steps to test the changes:

1. Take a submission through the editorial process and produce a published article with at least one public peer review.
2. Ensure peer review DOIs are enabled.
3. Export Crossref article metadata (meant for external deposit). This will produce two files; one for peer reviews and one for articles.
4. Confirm the peer review XML validity with Crossref XML metadata quality checking tool.

What application are you using?
OJS 3.6

Additional information
N/A

Pull Requests
ojs: pkp/ojs#5517
omp: pkp/omp#2329
ops: pkp/ops#1280
pkp-lib: #12605
ui-library: pkp/ui-library#883
crossref-ojs: pkp/crossref-ojs#93

[ewhanson]

@bozana, I've linked to the whole metadata schema documentation above, but if you have any specific things you know need to be included for Crossref deposits for peer reviews, could you note them above? Wondering if there's anything you know of that might not be obvious. Thanks!

[taslangraham]

Hey @ewhanson @bozana

This issue description suggests that DOIs for peer review should be included in the same XML as the Crossref article metadata export. However, after reviewing the Crossref schema documentation, it appears that a single XML export cannot contain deposits for more than one content type.

From the schema documentation:

While it is possible to include records for multiple journals, books, conferences, or other types of content in a single submission, it is not possible to mix content types within a single DOI submission.

This is also reflected in the definition of the body element:

<xsd:element name="body">
  <xsd:annotation>
    <xsd:documentation>Container for the main body of a DOI record submission. While it is possible to include records for multiple journals, books, conferences, or other types of content in a single submission, it is not possible to mix content types within a single DOI submission.</xsd:documentation>
  </xsd:annotation>
  <xsd:complexType>
    <xsd:choice>
      <xsd:element ref="journal" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="book" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="conference" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="sa_component" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="dissertation" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="report-paper" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="standard" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="database" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="peer_review" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="pending_publication" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="posted_content" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
    </xsd:choice>
  </xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>

Note the use of xsd:choice, which allows only one of these element types to appear within the body.

Based on this, peer review DOI exports would need to be generated in a separate XML file from article exports. All peer review deposits must include relationship metadata linking the review with the item being reviewed as outlined here.

@bozana If there’s anything I may have overlooked, or any additional details we should be aware of, please let me know. Thanks!

[taslangraham]

Hey @ewhanson @bozana

This issue description suggests that DOIs for peer review should be included in the same XML as the Crossref article metadata export. However, after reviewing the Crossref schema documentation, it appears that a single XML export cannot contain deposits for more than one content type.

From the schema documentation:

While it is possible to include records for multiple journals, books, conferences, or other types of content in a single submission, it is not possible to mix content types within a single DOI submission.

This is also reflected in the definition of the body element:

<xsd:element name="body">
  <xsd:annotation>
    <xsd:documentation>Container for the main body of a DOI record submission. While it is possible to include records for multiple journals, books, conferences, or other types of content in a single submission, it is not possible to mix content types within a single DOI submission.</xsd:documentation>
  </xsd:annotation>
  <xsd:complexType>
    <xsd:choice>
      <xsd:element ref="journal" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="book" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="conference" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="sa_component" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="dissertation" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="report-paper" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="standard" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="database" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="peer_review" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="pending_publication" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xsd:element ref="posted_content" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
    </xsd:choice>
  </xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>

Note the use of xsd:choice, which allows only one of these element types to appear within the body.

Based on this, peer review DOI exports would need to be generated in a separate XML file from article exports. All peer review deposits must include relationship metadata linking the review with the item being reviewed as outlined here.

@bozana If there’s anything I may have overlooked, or any additional details we should be aware of, please let me know. Thanks!

From a technical POV, a solution would be to introduce new API endpoints to generate the peer review exports. Or maybe update the existing endpoint to generate the peer review exports too, but that might be bit convoluted and I think keeping it in separate endpoints would be easier to manage.

[bozana]

Hi @taslangraham and @ewhanson

Oh, yes, that is correct -- that we can submit only one content type per document. This leads me to the question, if we should rather separate peer-reviews listing to another tab, similar to issues listing/tab on the DOIs management page. What do you think? Maybe it is worth investigating. Else, when exporting submissions (for download) we will need to create a gzip or zip package in order to allow download of DOIs for article and peer-review. It also brings a little bit more complications for deposit, I believe.

Taslan, the Crossref and DataCite (and mEDRA) plugins have their own way of functioning, calling specific functions (e.g. depositSubmissions or exportSubmissions), to export and deposit, as well as using internal filters (to create the XML), which we would need to use or follow also for peer-review, I believe. These plugins still do not use API -- this improvement is eventually/hopefully still to come in one of the next releases.