论文标题
对DOIS缺失的分析：哪些因素破坏了它们的持久性以及在多大程度上？
Analysis of the deletions of DOIs: What factors undermine their persistence and to what extent?
论文作者
论文摘要
数字对象标识符（DOIS）被认为是持久的；但是，它们有时会被删除。删除的DOI不仅是持续访问学术含量，而且对于书目计量学的持续访问，因为它们可能在正确识别学术文章时会引起问题。但是，关于删除的DOI和导致它们的原因知之甚少。我们通过在两个不同的日期比较所有Crossref DOI的数据集，研究了已删除的DOI，研究了学术含量中已删除的DOIS的数量以及相应的文档类型，并分析了导致删除DOI的因素。使用提出的方法，确定了708,282个已删除的DOI。大多数人对应于个人学术文章，例如期刊文章，会议论文集和书籍章节。有许多DOI分配给相同内容的案例，例如缩回的期刊文章和国际会议摘要。我们向出版商和学术社会展示了最常见的DOIS。此外，揭示了单个学术含量的最高案例，并揭示了大量已删除的DOI。这项研究的发现对于引用分析和altmetrics以及避免被删除的DOI有用。
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.
