Analysis of the deletions of DOIs: What factors undermine their persistence and to what extent?
Analysis of the deletions of DOIs: What factors undermine their persistence and to what extent?
复制标题
DOI 删除分析：哪些因素会破坏其持久性以及破坏程度如何？
DOI：
10.1007/978-3-031-16802-4_13
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Yoshikane Fuyuki
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kikkawa Jiro;Takaku Masao;Yoshikane Fuyuki
数字对象识别符(DOI)被认为是永久性的；然而，它们有时会被删除。删除的DOI不仅对于持久访问学术内容是一个重要的问题，而且对于文献计量学也是如此，因为它们可能会导致正确识别学术文章的问题。然而，关于被删除的DOI有多少以及原因是什么，我们知之甚少。我们通过比较两个不同日期的所有CrossRef DOI的数据集来识别删除的DOI，调查了学术内容中删除的DOI的数量以及对应的文档类型，并分析了导致删除的DOI的因素。使用所提出的方法，共识别出708,282个缺失的DOI。大多数对应于个别的学术文章，如期刊文章、会议论文集文章和书籍章节。有许多DOI被分配给相同的内容，例如，撤回的期刊文章和国际会议的摘要。我们展示了在被删除的DOI中最常见的出版商和学术团体。此外，还揭示了删除大量DOI的单一学术内容的排名靠前的案例。这项研究的结果对引文分析和altmetrics以及避免被删除的DOI是有用的。
Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) are regarded as persistent; however, they are sometimes deleted. Deleted DOIs are an important issue not only for persistent access to scholarly content but also for bibliometrics, because they may cause problems in correctly identifying scholarly articles. However, little is known about how much of deleted DOIs and what causes them. We identified deleted DOIs by comparing the datasets of all Crossref DOIs on two different dates, investigated the number of deleted DOIs in the scholarly content along with the corresponding document types, and analyzed the factors that cause deleted DOIs. Using the proposed method, 708,282 deleted DOIs were identified. The majority corresponded to individual scholarly articles such as journal articles, proceedings articles, and book chapters. There were cases of many DOIs assigned to the same content, e.g., retracted journal articles and abstracts of international conferences. We show the publishers and academic societies which are the most common in deleted DOIs. In addition, the top cases of single scholarly content with a large number of deleted DOIs were revealed. The findings of this study are useful for citation analysis and altmetrics, as well as for avoiding deleted DOIs.