# \[Crossmark\] Different semantics for updated date between 2 major publishers

**URL:** https://community.crossref.org/t/crossmark-different-semantics-for-updated-date-between-2-major-publishers/15954
**Category:** Metadata quality improvements
**Tags:** update-doi, content-registration, retractions
**Created:** [14 June 2026 10:09 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/crossmark-different-semantics-for-updated-date-between-2-major-publishers/15954 "2026-06-14T10:09:40Z")
**Posts on this page:** 3
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![gcabanac](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.crossref.org/gcabanac/32/2217_2.png) [@gcabanac](https://community.crossref.org/u/gcabanac)
#### Post date: [14 June 2026 10:09 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/crossmark-different-semantics-for-updated-date-between-2-major-publishers/15954/1 "2026-06-14T10:09:40Z")

</div>

This post relates to [Crossmark](https://www.crossref.org/documentation/crossmark/participating-in-crossmark/).

I am reporting a difference in the way 2 major publishers pushed metadata that are available through the [REST API `updates` filter](https://www.crossref.org/documentation/retrieve-metadata/rest-api/rest-api-filters/) (see screenshots).

Let me show the issue based on 2 retracted articles.

**Case 1** : Elsevier [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28357](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28357) (**[published 2024-04-15](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024043883)**, [retracted 2026-02](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844026000587))

The updated date field shows [2024-04-15](https://api.crossref.org/works?filter=updates:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28357) which is **the publication date** :

 ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/crossref/original/2X/1/1b95badc8f3191b66ac956e672bb5f750492ae9b.png)

**Case 2:** Springer Nature [https://doi.org/10.1038/ni829](https://doi.org/10.1038/ni829) ([published 2002-08-05](https://www.nature.com/articles/ni829), **[retracted 2026-02-09](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-026-02446-1)**)

The updated date field shows [2026-02-09](https://api.crossref.org/works?filter=updates:10.1038/ni829) which is **the retraction date** :

 ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/crossref/original/2X/a/acb3c46851d3f8b947ef26adec8ed30b3c4c0bca.png)

**Problem:** The semantics of the updated date differs between the 2 cases.

I would expect to find the date of the update, just like in Case 2, isn’t it?

Could Crossref staff confirm this and ask the other publisher to update their records, please?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![ifarley](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.crossref.org/ifarley/32/44_2.png) [@ifarley](https://community.crossref.org/u/ifarley)
#### Post date: [25 June 2026 17:40 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/crossmark-different-semantics-for-updated-date-between-2-major-publishers/15954/3 "2026-06-25T17:40:52Z")

</div>

Hi @gcabanac ,

Thanks for highlighting the discrepancies here. I am in contact with the technical contact at Elsevier. It looks to us like they may have deposited an incorrect date in the metadata. I’ll let you know what I learn.

Warm regards,

Isaac

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![ifarley](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.crossref.org/ifarley/32/44_2.png) [@ifarley](https://community.crossref.org/u/ifarley)
#### Post date: [9 July 2026 21:06 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/crossmark-different-semantics-for-updated-date-between-2-major-publishers/15954/4 "2026-07-09T21:06:01Z")

</div>

Hello again @gcabanac,

Our contact at Elsevier has confirmed that the observation noted here are correct; that they are including an inaccurate date in the metadata. They have confirmed that they will be fixing this. I don’t yet have a timeline, but once I know more I’ll let you know.

-Isaac