Open Scholarly Metadata Across Publication Formats - A Literature Review

Open Scholarly Metadata Across Publication Formats: A Literature Review examines metadata elements identified as required or desirable across publication formats, as well as barriers resource-constrained publishers face in creating and disseminating open metadata. 

The document was developed by the Task Force for Supporting Resource-Constrained Publishers, part of the Working Group on Journal Article Metadata and Book Metadata of the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information.

Key findings

• The literature most frequently identifies the following metadata elements as
  required: bibliographic information, rights and licensing, contributor names and roles,
  affiliations, dates, work type and publication status, subject classifications, and
  persistent identifiers. The literature is less consistent on whether relationships
  between outputs should be considered required or desirable.
• The barriers identified in the literature span four areas of the metadata lifecycle:
  creation, curation, processing, and interoperability. They range from limited resources
  and technical capacity to incompatible systems, weak coordination, and gaps in
  knowledge about persistent identifiers and funder metadata.
• Metadata needs vary by publication format. Journal articles need more complete and
  consistent workflows; books require coordination across bibliographic, commercial,
  and scholarly systems; and chapters need recognition as independent contributions
  while retaining their links to books. Proceedings, datasets, software, preprints, and
  repositories also have distinct requirements.
• Open metadata sources do not yet represent all research outputs equally. The
  reviewed literature identifies coverage gaps affecting research from Africa and China,
  journals using Open Journal Systems, and non-journal outputs. The report also notes
  that open databases are developing rapidly, so some findings may change over time

Overall conclusion. Scholarly communication needs metadata practices that are open by default while remaining sufficiently differentiated and context-sensitive to reflect the diversity of scholarly outputs. It also highlights the need for more voices from underrepresented contexts in research and discussions about open metadata.

What comes next? The Task Force proposes comparing the review’s findings with survey results and exploring community roundtables, practical resources, and recommendations in its next phase.