Talk:Digital object identifier

Untitled

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

Primary topic of DOI

There's currently a requested move at Talk:DOI#Requested move 24 June 2023 to move one of the dabed articles to the base name as the primary topic. Thought I'd advertise it here to see if anyone wants to chime in given that there's probably not many people watching the dab page itself. Candidates seem to be United States Department of the Interior, Digital object identifier or these two being equivalent, so I'm advertising it at both talk pages though if someone else can name another one I might copy it over there as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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. —⁠Collin^{t c} 22:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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! —⁠Collin^{t c} 00:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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)