Scientific Content Management System | Curvenote

Curvenote Scientific Content Management System

A web-first experience that brings science and data to the surface. Enhance comprehension and maximize impact and reach of your research using rich metadata and interactive figures.

Single-Source Publishing Community

Join the Single-Source Publishing Community for open, interoperable, and sustainable scholarly publishing workflows.

Curvenote Reader brings a better reading experience to half a million openRxiv preprints

Curvenote Reader is now live across half a million bioRxiv preprints - bringing inline citations, zoomable figures, and connected context directly into the reading flow. Find out how we modernized one of science's biggest preprint repositories without disrupting a single workflow.

Empowering science communities with open, democratic, researcher-owned infrastructure.

We’re building communities and tech for publishing, curating, sharing, and discussing research online using ATProto and other decentralized protocols.

Empowering science communities with open, democratic, researcher-owned infrastructure.

We’re building communities and tech for publishing, curating, sharing, and discussing research online using ATProto and other decentralized protocols.

From Albums to Streams: How Modularity Changes Systems

Scientific publishing is breaking under document-centric formats designed for a physical world. Borrowing from music’s shift from albums to streaming, we make the case that open access alone cannot deliver reuse, trust, or scale. The future of science depends on modular, interoperable research components that move across tools, enabling new workflows, tools, and ecosystems.

Crossref: The sustainable source of community-owned scholarly metadata

This paper describes the scholarly metadata collected and made available by Crossref, as well as its importance in the scholarly research ecosystem. Containing over 106 million records and expanding at an average rate of 11% a year, Crossref’s metadata has become one of the major sources of scholarly data for publishers, authors, librarians, funders, and researchers. The metadata set consists of 13 content types, including not only traditional types, such as journals and conference papers, but also data sets, reports, preprints, peer reviews, and grants. The metadata is not limited to basic publication metadata, but can also include abstracts and links to full text, funding and license information, citation links, and the information about corrections, updates, retractions, etc. This scale and breadth make Crossref a valuable source for research in scientometrics, including measuring the growth and impact of science and understanding new trends in scholarly communications. The metadata is available through a number of APIs, including REST API and OAI-PMH. In this paper, we describe the kind of metadata that Crossref provides and how it is collected and curated. We also look at Crossref’s role in the research ecosystem and trends in metadata curation over the years, including the evolution of its citation data provision. We summarize the research used in Crossref’s metadata and describe plans that will improve metadata quality and retrieval in the future.

Curvenote® (@curvenote.com)

Curvenote's mission is to free science from static PDF documents to enable researchers to continuously share more interactive, reproducible, and richly-linked #openscience content. Curvenote develops authoring and publishing tools for researchers.

FAIR Principles - GO FAIR

In 2016, the ‘FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship’ were published in Scientific Data. The authors intended to provide guidelines to improve the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse of digital assets. The principles emphasise machine-actionability (i.e., the capacity of… Continue reading →

OpenRxiv & Curvenote’s new Reader launch took to the stage at FORCE11 2026

At FORCE11 2026, Curvenote showcased the newly launched Curvenote Reader deployed over all of openRxiv to enthusiastic feedback from scientific publishing leaders — with callouts on the innovation from the opening and closing keynotes as a meaningful step forward for open science.

Lab Notes #004: Semble Updates - Notifications, Provenance and Indie Integrations - Cosmik Labs

Spreading good attention karma with new Semble notifications and provenance, and some cool indie Semble integrations

Atlas Research - AI-Powered Research Platform

Transform your research workflow with Atlas - an AI-powered platform for data analysis, PDF processing, and interactive notebooks.

Docs — Turn your team's content into knowledge

Docs is the open-source document editor that turns your team's content into knowledge: real-time collaboration, structured knowledge, and full data ownership. Self-host it anywhere, or try a public instance in seconds.

Manuscript submission systems and metadata completeness in Crossref: Patterns and associations

The importance of open research information, particularly publication metadata, is widely recognised. Crossref is one of the most important infrastructures for registering open metadata as part of DOI record registration. It is widely known, however, that the metadata of many publications is far from complete, with many publishers making certain metadata openly available, but failing to do so for other metadata elements. Publishers’ ability to register this metadata with Crossref depends on their capacity to capture and retain this data in their production workflows. Manuscript submission systems are an important, yet largely overlooked, factor in the extent to which publishers make metadata available through Crossref. In this paper, we present the results of an analysis investigating the relation between the level of metadata that publishers deposit with Crossref and the submission systems that they deploy for their journals. We have looked at the 153 publishers with the largest amounts of publications in Crossref and concentrate on the four most commonly used systems: Editorial Manager, ScholarOne, Open Journal Systems (OJS) and eJournalPress. We show that some submission systems appear better suited to capturing certain metadata elements. However, there are always cases where publishers using the same system differ widely in the level of metadata they register, suggesting that technology is not the only prohibiting factor and other considerations are at play.