#xitter

@clayson_peter @CrossrefOrg Can you give us example? We might be able to shed light.

@connorspeers @martin_eve @CrossrefOrg @letsencrypt .@letsencrypt is inspiring. Am all for somebody covering the costs of open infrastructure through grants and/or endowments. Now to convince the funders.

@connorspeers @martin_eve @CrossrefOrg Crossmarks do depend on having a Crossref DOI, but if you are depositing Crossref DOIs, then you can participate in Crossmark without any other fees. And, as always, you can query any Crossref metadata (including Crossmark) using our open API at https://api.crossref.org

@martin_eve @connorspeers @CrossrefOrg We agree. We want to make correction/retraction info more broadly available and so we *removed* extra fees for Crossmark last year. Our fault as that info about fee removal is buried in the page and we haven’t made yet any major announcements about the change.

@martin_eve @connorspeers @CrossrefOrg Oops. I was mistaken- we did announce fee removal:

https://www.crossref.org/blog/encouraging-even-greater-reporting-of-corrections-and-retractions/

@connorspeers @CrossrefOrg Hi. @martin_eve explored similar idea in 2012:

https://twitter.com/martin_eve/status/165046039701766144

Wrote up his conclusions here:

https://eve.gd/2012/02/04/more-thoughts-on-metrics-link-rot-canonical-urls/

You might also be interested in general challenges of open scholarly infrastructures:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1314859