Why doesn't arXiv offer DOI?

Question

Does arXiv not offer DOI due to technical or legal limitations? If not, would assigning DOI to pre-prints be a bad idea?

This post has been migrated from the Open Science private beta at StackExchange (A51.SE)

Comments

Related: [What added value do DOIs provide for open science?](http://openscience.stackexchange.com/q/112/22) Why is a DOI an inherently more stable persistent identifier than an arXiv URI?

This post has been migrated from the Open Science private beta at StackExchange (A51.SE)

---

If you think that this thread should be migrated to Academia or another SE site because the OpenScience beta is closing, please edit the list of questions shortlisted for the migration [here](http://meta.openscience.stackexchange.com/questions/73/).

This post has been migrated from the Open Science private beta at StackExchange (A51.SE)

Answer 1

I found an email record from 2010 stating that arXiv does not issue DOIs to avoid duplicated permanent records if a journal publishes the paper.

Personally, I think this reasoning should be revisited as bioRxiv and PeerJ Preprints both offer DOIs.

Another major issue is that DOIs are costly to issue. Presently, the arXiv contains 1,064,398 articles. At a dollar a pop for DOI registration with CrossRef you are looking at some serious fees. These fees, even if discounted, are hefty for a project with annual operating costs of just $826,000.

In conclusion, DOIs are a foundational aspect of modern citation and they should be made affordable so arXiv can adopt them.

This post has been migrated from the Open Science private beta at StackExchange (A51.SE)

Comments

Just to clarify- DOI pricing varies between DOI registration agencies (RAs). CrossRef has a per-DOI registration charge, but DataCite currently does not. Also, CrossRef DOI pricing can also vary according to content type. The oft-quoted 1 dollar per DOI **only** applies to CrossRef DOIs for current articles (defined as published within past two years). Backfiles can be registered for $0.15 and dataset/components can go down to $.0005 in batches of 100K+. See the CrossRef pricing page for more details: http://www.crossref.org/02publishers/20pub_fees.html

This post has been migrated from the Open Science private beta at StackExchange (A51.SE)

Answer 2

Until relatively recently it was hard for organisations like arXiv to assign DOIs- even if they wanted to. This is because, up until 2009, CrossRef was really the only major DOI registration agency and it has hitherto had a rule prohibiting the assignment of CrossRef DOIs to "preprints." The rationale for this was that, when CrossRef was founded, publishers thought that assigning separate DOIs to multiple versions of an article might make it harder to easily identify the version of record and that this, in turn, would confuse the citation record.

Note that arXiv could have decided to assign CrossRef DOIs to content that was not destined to be published. bioRxiv has done this for years. The problem is it is virtually impossible to predict what might be published. In practice this means that, despite its best efforts, bioRxiv ended up assigning several hundred CrossRef DOIs to items that eventually got published and were assigned a separate CrossRef DOI. It is understandable that arXiv didn't want to face this hassle.

arXiv and bioRxiv could have also gone to another registration agency (like DataCite) and assigned DOIs through them. Indeed- this is what FigShare and Zenodo have done. But again, the problem with this approach is that you can easily end up with multiple versions of the same content with different DOIs and no easy way to link them. You can even end up with the exact same version of the document with different DOIs. You can see this problem (amongst others) discussed here:

http://goo.gl/L8vgqm

Which gets us back to CrossRef's prohibition on assigning DOIs to preprints. We have good news here- CrossRef will soon be lifting this prohibition. We have concluded that we will be much better able to clarify the citation record if we allow our members to assign DOIs to different versions of articles and for us to provide tools and guidelines for labelling and linking those versions. Although you should not interpret this as a change in their respective DOI policies, it is worth mentioning that both arXiv and bioRxiv were on the working group that helped us come to this decision. More details on the new policy will be coming out soon.

Disclosure- I am CrossRef's Director for Strategic Initiatives.

This post has been migrated from the Open Science private beta at StackExchange (A51.SE)

Answer 3

Hmm, perhaps it is sort of historical as well. arXiv

Started in August 1991...

According to their website https://arxiv.org/help/general

While the DOI seemed to appear around 2000 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier and Crossref appeard in 2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrossRef

So, perhaps arXiv's method of IDing articles was established, and by the time DOI's came about, they didn't want to adopt them? The email record above seems like a somewhat valid reason to not have DOIs now, but the fact that arXiv was around before DOIs seems to play a role.

This post has been migrated from the Open Science private beta at StackExchange (A51.SE)

Answer 4

Digital Object Identifiers are handed out by CrossRef, which says

“Preprints” are considered Duplicative Works and are specifically excluded from deposit in CrossRef.

This post has been migrated from the Open Science private beta at StackExchange (A51.SE)

Comments

Not quite. There are currently 9 [registration agencies](http://www.doi.org/registration_agencies.html) for DOIs, one of which is CrossRef. Although, the [CrossRef documentation](http://www.crossref.org/02publishers/glossary.html#anchor7) does claim to not allow preprints, preprints from [bioRxiv](http://biorxiv.org/) do have metadata in their database. Additionally, [PeerJ Preprints](https://peerj.com/preprints/) do have DOIs but do not have CrossRef metadata.

This post has been migrated from the Open Science private beta at StackExchange (A51.SE)