Talk:Digital object identifier

Talk:Digital object identifier

Untitled

For the use of DOIs in Wikipedia, see Template:Doi/doc.

Update in regard to ISO 26324:2025

Specifically now that DOIs have a registered URN form, this page might need an update.

DOI of even important journals do not take us anywhere. How do we see that?

For instance, paper mentioned here - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5467859/ [Holder AR. Misdiagnosis of appendicitis. JAMA. 1970 Jun 8;212(10):1763-4. doi: 10.1001/jama.212.10.1763. PMID: 5467859.] has a doi number as 10.1001/jama.212.10.1763. But this paper is neither available at JAMA site [1], nor at https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.212.10.1763 Neotaruntius (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Neotaruntius - The best place to ask about this would be the publisher themselves, in this case the American Medical Association/JAMA Network. Their contact page can be found here. You can also reach out to Crossref (with whom the DOI is registered) here. —⁠Collint c 22:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Bobamnertiopsis: Thanks for your kind comments. In this connection, I have had a detailed discussion with User talk:Remsense. May I suggest, you read this entire discussion. In retrospect, I feel, that because of my being a newbie/greenhorn, I did not make myself clear in the first place, that I was not asking it for "help", but for a genuine need for improving the page. In fact, my question was - rightly - removed with the comments that it was not a help page. I then realized my mistake and discussed it with Remsense [see above please]. He agreed with my contention and restored the question [albeit with some suggestions to me]. May I humbly suggest you read the discussion. If there are further points, I am open to discussion. Thanks for asking this. Neotaruntius (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I encountered another instance of "failed DOI". If we visit the paper listed here - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39193969/, the corresponding DOI [https://doi.org/10.7754/Clin.Lab.2024.240242] does not take us anywhere. Does the community think, that it is okay to highlight this feature under a category tentatively called "Potential drawbacks"? Kindly advise. Thanks.Neotaruntius (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi Neotaruntius - the problem you're describing is a real one! DOIs are reliant on the metadata submitted by the articles' publishers. If an article's webpage moves and the metadata is not updated by the publisher then a major utility of the DOI (the ability to take the reader to the digital object in question) is knocked out. Likewise if a publisher goes out of business and doesn't transfer ownership of its DOIs to another publisher then the task of updating the metadata for the DOIs may likewise fall by the wayside. Finally–as in the Clin Lab example you provided–DOIs may sometimes be assigned by a publisher before they are registered with a DOI registration agency. The Clin Lab DOI is now properly registered and resolves as it should but it's true that DOIs are only as good as the organizations maintaining them. This could certainly merit mention in the article if you have some sources for it! —⁠Collint c 00:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Figshare

Should the content section mention Figshare, which issues DOIs for uploaded material? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.