Metadata Tagging
Pubrica provides metadata tagging for journal articles and published backfiles. Our metadata specialists work with journals and publishers to apply affiliation, contributor, funder and subject metadata accurately, using ROR identifiers, CRediT roles, ORCID and controlled subject terms such as MeSH. You receive Crossref-ready output and a report of any entries that cannot be resolved. Accurate metadata supports institutional reporting, funder compliance, subject discovery and citation attribution.
- ROR identifiers for affiliations, which Crossref is adopting for funder and affiliation data and which free-text institution names cannot support
- CRediT contributor roles applied to the ANSI/NISO taxonomy, so contribution statements are machine-readable
- ORCID identifiers matched and verified, not only collected, because an unverified identifier attached to the wrong person causes more harm than a missing one
- Controlled subject terms: MeSH for biomedical content, and your own taxonomy where you maintain one
- Funder data structured with award identifiers, so compliance reporting does not require manual review of every article
ROR affiliation identifiersIncluded
CRediT contributor rolesIncluded
ORCID matching and verificationIncluded
Funder and award dataIncluded
Depositing to CrossrefThrough your member account
Article → resolved → tagged → checked → deposited
- Affiliations resolved to ROR
- CRediT roles applied to the taxonomy
- ORCID matched and verified
- Funder data structured with awards
- Unresolvable entries reported
Deliverables
Four Components of Metadata Tagging for Every Article
Each article has its own set of contributors and institutions, and the metadata can support only what can be resolved to an identifier.
From the affiliation passDept of Medicine, Univ. of Example, ExamplevilleResolved to the institution’s ROR identifier, with the department retained as free text. The article is now attributed to that institution in every system that reads ROR.
From the CRediT passJS and AJ contributed equally to the study.Conceptualization: JS, AJ. Methodology: JS. Formal analysis: AJ. Writing — original draft: JS. Writing — review and editing: JS, AJ. The same information, in a form a system can read.
From the verificationMatched against the ORCID record and checked for plausibility. Where it cannot be verified, it is reported rather than deposited.
From the funding passThis work was supported by the National Research Council.Funder resolved to its registry identifier, with the award number extracted and attached, so a compliance dashboard can find it.
The samples shown are illustrative and anonymised. Hover over a sample to replay it.
Compliance and Standards
Metadata Registries and Taxonomies
These are the registries and taxonomies that downstream systems read.
Research Organization Registry (affiliations and funders)
Open identifiers for research organisations. Crossref is moving to ROR in place of legacy funder identifiers, so now is an appropriate time to adopt it.
Contributor Roles Taxonomy (ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022)
The fourteen standard contributor roles, applied as data rather than as a prose statement.
Controlled subject vocabularies (MeSH, plus your own)
Indexing and discovery systems rely on controlled vocabularies, and free-text keywords cannot be retrieved in the same way.
ICMJE Recommendations (authorship and declarations)
Covers authorship criteria, contributor roles, conflict of interest, funding and data statements: the declarations an article is expected to carry.
Responsible Use of AI
Our Approach to AI Use and Disclosure
AI tools support specific, checkable tasks. Editorial judgement, final wording and sign-off remain with Pubrica subject specialists.
Why We Do Not Publish an AI Accuracy Figure
Accuracy figures for AI tools are usually reported by the companies that sell them.
Pubrica therefore does not quote a self-generated accuracy figure, because it would carry the same conflict of interest. Instead, we tell you which tool was used on your project, at which stage, and what a specialist changed afterwards.
Our Process
How Our Metadata Tagging Process Works
Resolving entries to identifiers is the core of the work. Most resolution is automated, and specialist review of the remaining entries determines accuracy.
Extract and normalise
We extract affiliations, contributors, funders and subjects from the article and normalise them before matching.
Resolve to identifiers
We resolve institutions to ROR, contributors to ORCID and funders to their registry entries, automatically where the match is certain and manually where it is ambiguous.
Apply roles and subjects
We derive CRediT roles from the contribution statement and assign controlled subject terms from MeSH or your taxonomy.
Verify and report
We check all metadata for plausibility, produce output in your deposit format and report any entry that cannot be resolved rather than guessing.
Our experts
Your Metadata Tagging Team
A named team of subject specialists stays with your project from scoping to delivery. Your project coordinator introduces each team member by name before work begins.
Reviews the scientific content for accuracy and confirms that each conclusion is supported by the evidence. Each expert is matched to your field of research.
Edits for clarity, grammar, structure and consistency while preserving the author voice and scientific meaning.
Checks the finished work independently against the agreed scope and the applicable checklist. Findings are logged and resolved before delivery.
Manages the timeline, keeps you informed at each stage and coordinates the team so that questions are answered and deadlines are met.
Packages
Metadata Tagging Service Packages
Pricing depends on author and affiliation counts and on how much manual resolution is required.
Current content
For journals tagging articles at publication
Quoted per projectOn author and affiliation counts
Delivery By volume
- ✓Affiliations resolved to ROR
- ✓CRediT roles applied
- ✓ORCID matched and verified
- ✓Funder and award data structured
- ✓Subject terms assigned
- ✓Deposit-ready output
Tagging at publication costs much less than tagging retrospectively.
Deliverables Request a quoteBackfile enrichment
For publishers improving metadata on published content
Quoted per projectOn volume, quoted from a sample
Delivery By arrangement
- ✓Sample to establish resolution rates
- ✓Batch resolution and tagging
- ✓Unresolvable entries reported by category
- ✓Deposit updates prepared
- ✓Common upstream causes identified
Resolution rates vary widely by publication age and discipline, and the sample shows whether backfile enrichment is worthwhile.
Deliverables Request a quoteSend ten articles and we will tag them free of charge and report the resolution rate, which shows what a backfile programme would achieve before you commit to one.
FAQs
Metadata Tagging FAQs
If your question is not listed here, ask an expert. No quote is required.
Free-text affiliations cannot be aggregated. The same institution appears with different abbreviations, departments and spellings, and downstream systems cannot recognise them as one institution.
Crossref is moving to ROR for affiliation and funder data, so adopting it now avoids repeating the work later.
Yes, mainly because CRediT is machine-readable. A prose contribution statement meets a journal requirement but cannot be queried, counted or displayed by other systems.
Applied to the standard taxonomy, contributor roles become data, which institutional reporting and contributor attribution require.
We report it rather than depositing it. An unverified identifier attached to the wrong person causes more harm than a missing identifier, and it is difficult to correct once deposited.
The same applies to affiliations and funders: unresolvable entries are listed in a report rather than guessed.
We produce deposit-ready output. The deposit itself is made through your Crossref member account, because the record belongs to you and the account carries obligations.
If you would like us to prepare and submit deposits under your account, we can do so with your authorisation.
Related services
Related Editorial and Publishing Services
Accurate metadata makes your published content discoverable. These related services support the wider editorial and publishing workflow.
1RELATED RECORDSsame deposit
Permission and metadataClearance, rights and records. Reference validationDOIs resolved and linked.2INDEXING AND DISCOVERYdiscovery
Journal indexing applicationsDOAJ, Scopus and Web of Science. Digital production QAQuality checks before publication.3JOURNAL OPERATIONSoperations
Editorial office servicesPeer review and journal operations. Compliance statement checkingEthics, funding, COI and data.Request Free Metadata Tagging for Ten Articles
We report the resolution rate, which shows what a backfile programme would achieve before you commit to one.