Basic requirement of regular literature

[Melissa37]

PMC requests each citation for regular literature includes the journal title (source), volume and fpage/elocation ID.

Comments?

[Melissa37]

JATS documentation could do with being updated as it lists fpage but not elocation ID in the guidance about tagging references specific page

[Melissa37]

It would be great if volume could be done away with. We wanted to not publish eLife content in volumes when we first started but could not because of libraries, and other downstream hosts of our content...

[Melissa37]

I think a lack of DOI should be a warning in our tool if there is one missing from a citation. Understand some content might not have a DOI, but it should be the standard for most citations nowadays

[jeffbeckncbi]

No DOI as a warning - remember people still reference things from the days before DOI, so you might be issuing a lot of warnings for these cases. Too many false warnings mean people will ignore all warnings.

Requiring a DOI in the aritcle-meta is another question though, but not for this discussion.

[jats-laura]

Similar to the DOI as warning, this needs to be about what's being cited, not about current metadata. If you do away with volume in citations you're left with unidentifiable sources. In older content, especially before DOIs, volume+page was everything. Until the bulk of the literature being cited moves away from that, volume really needs to stay.

[hubgit]

I think a lack of DOI should be a warning in our tool if there is one missing from a citation

Is there a plan for citation validation in general? I'd like to turn this experiment, which compares a reference list against data retrieved from CrossRef, into something more generally useful - which could be overlaid on an article in order to validate the reference list.

[Melissa37]

We could do something smarter like if a reference date is year XXXX or more recent, produce a warning if the DOI is not preset?
Some people suggest that in the future a reference list could just be a list of DOIs....not sure I agree with that, as you lose information at a glance, but I think DOIs should be strongly encouraged.

Like Alf's idea a lot!