Digital preservation has become an increasingly important topic in the world of scholarly research. With the rise of digital publishing and the move towards open access, it is crucial that we ensure the long-term accessibility and accuracy of scholarly works. However, a recent study of Crossref DOI data by Martin Eve has revealed some concerning findings. It seems that the current standard of digital preservation may fall short of adequately safeguarding the persistent and accurate record of scholarly works.
Crossref DOI, or Digital Object Identifier, is a unique alphanumeric string assigned to each digital object. It serves as a permanent identifier, allowing for easy access and retrieval of digital content. Crossref, a not-for-profit organization, is responsible for assigning DOIs to scholarly works and maintaining the associated metadata. This makes it a valuable source of data for understanding the current state of digital preservation.
In his study, Eve analyzed the metadata of over 2.5 million scholarly works registered with Crossref. He found that a significant number of these works had incomplete or missing metadata, making it difficult to accurately preserve and access them in the future. In fact, almost 20% of the works had missing or incorrect author affiliations, while over 30% had incomplete or missing publication dates. These are crucial pieces of information for accurately identifying and citing scholarly works, and their absence poses a serious risk to the integrity of the scholarly record.
One of the main reasons for these gaps in metadata is the lack of standardization in the way publishers provide this information to Crossref. While Crossref has guidelines in place for metadata submission, they are not mandatory, and many publishers do not adhere to them. This results in inconsistent and incomplete metadata, making it difficult for researchers and institutions to accurately track and preserve scholarly works.
Another concerning finding of Eve’s study is the high rate of broken links associated with DOIs. A broken link means that the digital content associated with a particular DOI is no longer accessible, making it impossible to retrieve and use the work. Eve found that over 15% of DOIs registered with Crossref had broken links, making these works effectively lost in the digital realm. This is a worrying trend, as it not only hinders access to important research but also raises questions about the long-term viability of digital preservation.
So, what can be done to address these issues and ensure the persistent and accurate record of scholarly works? The first step is for publishers to take responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of their metadata. Crossref has recently introduced a new service called Metadata Plus, which allows publishers to deposit and validate their metadata against Crossref’s guidelines. This will help ensure that the metadata associated with DOIs is accurate and complete, making it easier to preserve and access scholarly works in the future.
In addition, Crossref is also working on improving its DOI resolution system to reduce the number of broken links. This will involve implementing a new infrastructure that will allow for real-time checking of links to ensure they are still active. This is a crucial step in safeguarding the long-term accessibility of digital content.
However, the responsibility for digital preservation does not solely lie with Crossref and publishers. Researchers and institutions also have a role to play in ensuring the accuracy and persistence of the scholarly record. This includes properly citing and linking to DOIs in their publications, as well as actively engaging in discussions around digital preservation and advocating for better standards and practices.
In conclusion, the study by Martin Eve has shed light on some worrying trends in the current standard of digital preservation. The gaps in metadata and high rate of broken links associated with DOIs pose a serious risk to the persistent and accurate record of scholarly works. However, with efforts from Crossref, publishers, researchers, and institutions, we can work towards improving the state of digital preservation and ensuring that the valuable research of today remains accessible for generations to come. It is crucial that we address these issues now before it’s too late, and the digital scholarly records face even greater risks in the future. Let us take action and work towards a more robust and reliable system of digital preservation.
