You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When a new publication is imported from Activity Insight or from Pure, we should run the DOI verification process. Right now, that process only runs on publications that are in the Activity Insight OA Workflow.
(We also fill in DOIs during the OAB and Unpaywall imports. Those DOIs that get filled in get marked as verified. However, that process doesn't verify the DOIs that are already present.)
Why: Running this on all new publications will likely mean that it fills in DOIs for a lot of additional publications. This will improve the application in quite a few ways, including by reducing the number of unnecessary/"false negative" reminder emails. It will also help with #973 and with deduplication generally. Talking to Eric about that issue is why I'm writing up this one. Update: Actually, seems like the main benefit of this would be that it corrects DOIs that are present but do not match the rest of the metadata.
@jlandiseigsti Another thing I should have mentioned in the description for this issue is that publications with the type "Extension Publication" should not ever go through DOI verification. (Related to #962 )
When a new publication is imported from Activity Insight or from Pure, we should run the DOI verification process. Right now, that process only runs on publications that are in the Activity Insight OA Workflow.
(We also fill in DOIs during the OAB and Unpaywall imports. Those DOIs that get filled in get marked as verified. However, that process doesn't verify the DOIs that are already present.)
Why: Running this on all new publications will likely mean that it fills in DOIs for a lot of additional publications. This will improve the application in quite a few ways, including by reducing the number of unnecessary/"false negative" reminder emails. It will also help with #973 and with deduplication generally. Talking to Eric about that issue is why I'm writing up this one. Update: Actually, seems like the main benefit of this would be that it corrects DOIs that are present but do not match the rest of the metadata.
Related: #1037
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: