The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year.
Double trouble with DOIs
Abstract
Detective Matcher stopped abruptly behind the corner of a short building, praying that his loud heartbeat doesn't give up his presence. This missing DOI case was unlike any other before, keeping him awake for many seconds already.
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?
A large amount of scholarly content provided by JSTOR was transferred to other registrants, and their DOIs were re-registered with the prefixes of new registrants.
“indicate that a large amount of scholarly content provided by JSTOR was transferred to other registrants, and their DOIs were re-registered with the prefixes of new registrants”
From Analysis of the deletions of DOIs: What factors undermine their persistence and to what extent? (2022) · cites this paper as [18]
The Introduction reports that JSTOR’s sampled DOIs had duplicates deposited by eight other members, and that JSTOR deposited certain shared DOIs first. This supports the existence of new DOIs for matching content under other registrants, but the paper does not establish that JSTOR’s content was transferred to them or quantify such a transfer as large. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThese results match those of Tkaczyk [18].
“These results match those of Tkaczyk [18]”
From Analysis of the deletions of DOIs: What factors undermine their persistence and to what extent? (2022) · cites this paper as [18]
The Introduction’s “Overall results” section reports that Tkaczyk flagged 4,240 of 524,496 DOIs (0.8%) as duplicates. I searched for the cited work’s results, but the citing sentence does not identify which of its own results supposedly match them, so the comparison cannot be checked from our copy. (LLM, conf=0.74)
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
- Tkaczyk, D.
- Publisher
- Crossref
- Published
- 2020-03-10
- 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
