2026-10-27 –, Naturalis 01
When looking at the term ‘Persistent Identifier’ by itself, the focus is on the ability to enquire and identify entities, and to continue to do so over time. However, most of the value from using PIDs comes from the metadata that is available with the PID record. In this short presentation, we will not only explain how metadata registration enables understanding, but also discuss four different layers of enrichment, namely member updates, community feedback loops, matching, and third-party data sources. We aim to show that enrichment can strengthen the reliability of the scholarly record and build the Research Nexus. We hope that this will provide the community with more insight into ways to optimise the use of metadata and that the session will lead to a lively discussion on how we can improve metadata together.
PIDs are popular, as the existence of PIDfest clearly shows! However, just assigning a string of characters to an entity adds limited value. It allows for identification and tracking over time, but little understanding or opportunity for reuse. This is where metadata comes in. Providing a rich, structured, and accurate description of an entity makes it part of the research ecosystem and enables analysis, validation, and further research.
When organisations register a PID and deposit metadata, this is only the beginning of what can become a long and fascinating journey. The metadata made available to the community often results from a series of updates and additions over time, sometimes coming from multiple sources and occurring in different ways. We can think of these ways as enrichment layers.
Each enrichment layer offers opportunities to improve the metadata, while also introducing its own considerations and challenges. Rather than forming a sequence of clearly separated stages, these layers intertwine, overlap, and affect one another, collectively shaping how a research output is represented and building towards the Research Nexus or scholarly graph. If we relied solely on the original, one-off deposits from members, the metadata would be full of gaps, limiting the usefulness of any analysis or assessment based on it. While scholarly metadata will never be perfectly complete, applying these enrichment layers is how we gradually and collectively build a fuller, more accurate picture of research.
One important caveat is that more metadata doesn’t always equal better metadata. In fact, there’s often a delicate tradeoff between completeness and quality: the harder one pushes to fill every gap, the greater the chance of introducing errors. Any enrichment must therefore meet a high bar for accuracy.
In this session, we’ll discuss the four layers of enrichment:
- Member updates
- Community feedback loop
- Metadata matching
- Third-party data sources
We’ll invite the community to comment on the usefulness of the different methods and to make additional suggestions for enrichment processes. We hope that the session will lead to a lively discussion on how we can improve metadata together.
CPO at Crossref; instigator of Metadata 20/20; Steering Board member of Barcelona Declaration.
Amanda French, ROR Technical Community Manager, is a well-known community manager and project director in the scholarly communication and digital humanities spheres. At Crossref, she works to encourage and support use of the Research Organization Registry (ROR).