-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
What percent of scholarly publication DOIs are registered with Crossref? #3
Comments
DOI Links on WikipediaThe 2016 study, "DOI Links on Wikipedia", provides the following discussion of the DOI RA breakdown:
Table 2 of this study shows the breakdown of RAs for DOI links on Wikipedia as of March 2015. This Table is reproduced below:
From this table, we can compute the percent of all DOI links on wikipedia that are for Crossref registered DOIs:
Therefore, it's clear that for DOIs that are actually referenced, they overwhelming were registered with Crossref. There is a small language effect with links in the Japanese Wikipedia using other registrars than Crossref about 2% of the time. |
From the 2014 article CrossRef developments and initiatives:
In @gbilder's referenced blog post, there's a nice visualization defining scope overlap between the RAs The RAs in the top right corner are the relevant ones for scholarly content. |
From the FAQ page at doi.org on June 16, 2017:
At this time, the Crossref API reports 89 million DOIs. Specifically https://api.crossref.org/works?rows=1 returns |
I found the above statistic handy. I just polled the Crossref API again today, and got |
Let's use this issue to jot down notes related to what percent of scholarly publication DOIs are registered with Crossref.
As a refresher, there are many DOI Registration Agencies (RA). For example, EIDR is a DOI RA for entertainment, so you can actually get DOI metadata for some porns! There is even discussion regarding DOIs for construction products. Shoutout to @jenniferlin15 who helped me understand these intricacies of the DOI system.
For our analyses, we're most interested in DOIs for scholarly content. There are other RAs than Crossref that engage with scholarly content. Some examples are:
We're mostly interested in cataloging all DOIs for scholarly publications in relation to our Sci-Hub coverage project.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: