Metadata Evaluation and Guidance


To identify and compare existing metadata evaluation tools and mechanisms for connecting the results of those evaluations to clear, cross-community guidance.

Project plan

The following project plan is estimated to encompass work between May and October 2018.

  • Populate Schemas, Tools and Guidance Information
  • Review existing evaluation tools and identify what they are evaluating (completeness, consistency, linking, quality, other).
  • Identify advantages/disadvantages of current evaluation tools and make recommendations for use
  • Together with Project 5, create a guidance document for evaluation tool use for multiple communities and/or create a white paper or statement to the wider scholarly communications community
  • Consider where there might be gaps in evaluation resources and where relevant, scope out the needs for ideal additional tools
  • Complete Project 5’s best practices resources survey


  • Currently it is difficult to evaluate the completeness, consistency and accuracy of metadata deposited across multiple systems and, thus, to demonstrate evolution and improvements through time
  • Researchers in particular do not have a good way of assessing the completeness of their metadata, and publishers have to take time to assess the metadata, leading to increased costs and delays
  • Publishers do not have a clear idea of the compliance of metadata to multiple standards, and checking that compliance is often manual and time consuming

Possible solutions to explore

  • Creation of a spirals-like metadata evaluation system for integration with submission systems, assessing the quality and completeness of metadata against different metadata standards
  • Identify simple quantitative metrics that can be used to measure and monitor completeness, consistency and accuracy of metadata
  • The Crossref Member metadata evaluation tool could be backed by Metadata 2020, with use cases of how publishers used the information to improve their own metadata. A similar approach could be looked at for other communities e.g. DataCite member metadata
  • The creation of a catalog of metadata quality tools and further resources could be very useful to the community

Group participants


  • Ted Habermann, HDF Group (Group Lead)
  • Cyrill Martin, Karger Publishers
  • David Schott, Copyright Clearance Center
  • Despoina Evangelakou, SAGE Publishing
  • Ed Moore, SAGE Publishing
  • Eva Mendez, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
  • Fiona Murphy, Scholarly Commons
  • Helen King, BMJ
  • Howard Ratner, CHORUS
  • Jennifer Lin, Crossref
  • John Horodyski, Optimity Advisors
  • Julie Zhu, IEEE
  • Kaci Resau, Washington & Lee University
  • Kathryn Kaiser, UAB School of Public Health
  • Kathryn Sullivan, University of Manchester
  • Keri Swenson
  • Kristi Holmes, Northwestern University
  • Lola Estelle, SPIE
  • Mahdi Moqri, RePEc
  • Mark Donoghue, IEEE
  • Melissa Jones, Silverchair
  • Melissa Harrison, eLife
  • Michelle B. Arispe, Philippine Nuclear Research Institute
  • Mike Taylor, Digital Science
  • Nathan Putnam, OCLC
  • Neil Jefferies, Data2paper, SWORD
  • Patricia Feeney, Crossref
  • Peter Kraker, Open Knowledge Maps
  • Ravit David, OCUL, University of Toronto Library
  • Ross Mounce, Arcadia Fund
  • Stephen Howe, Copyright Clearance Center
  • Tyler Ruse, Digital Science
  • Vladimir Alexiev, Ontotext