Analysis of the deletions of DOIs: What factors undermine their persistence and to what extent?

TL;DR

This study investigates the factors leading to DOI deletions by analyzing large datasets, revealing that most deletions involve scholarly articles and identifying key publishers and content types associated with deletions.

Contribution

It introduces a method to identify deleted DOIs and provides a comprehensive analysis of their causes and characteristics, which was previously underexplored.

Findings

708,282 deleted DOIs identified

Most deletions involve journal articles and conference abstracts

Certain publishers and content types are more prone to deletions

Abstract

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.