The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year.
New public data file: 120+ million metadata records
Abstract
2020 wasn't all bad. In April of last year, we released our first public data file. Though Crossref metadata is always openly available––and our board recently cemented this by voting to adopt the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI)now available, with thanks once again to Academic Torrents. Use of our open APIs continues to grow, as does the metadata. Last year's file was 112 million records and 65GB.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The study identified 708,282 deleted DOIs by comparing Crossref DOI datasets from March 2017 and January 2021.
“Using the proposed method, 708,282 deleted DOIs were identified.”
From Analysis of the deletions of DOIs: What factors undermine their persistence and to what extent? (2022) · cites this paper as [10]
The announcement describes a Crossref metadata file containing records registered through January 7, 2021 (section labeled “2026 September 17”; no page number). Our copy does not report a comparison with a March 2017 dataset or identify 708,282 deleted DOIs. Searches for that number and for the proposed dataset comparison found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Analysis of the deletions of DOIs: What factors undermine their persistence and to what extent?
Kikkawa, J., Takaku, M., & Yoshikane, F. (2022) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-16802-4_13 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Kemp, J.
- Publisher
- Crossref
- Published
- 2021-01-19
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
