trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Some academic papers lack a digital object identifier (DOI)
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
3 sources for · 0 against

Academic studies confirm that many journals and scholarly papers have historically lacked or failed to assign digital object identifiers (DOIs), and numerous bibliographic records omit them.

Evidence for · 3
2018 · cited by 9
Digital object identifiers (DOIs) are widely used across the world but not very much within China. This paper investigates the current usage of DOIs in China. Using an isometric method, we sampled 238 core Chinese academic journals from the Chinese Science and Technical Journal Citation Reports (2015 version, Core Edition), which includes 2,383 journals in total. According to our investigation, we found that: (1) although 80.25% of journals assign DOIs, 42.41% have only assigned DOIs to articles published after 2010; (2) most journals (89.01%) register DOIs through Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China; and (3) only 84.82% of journals that register DOIs include them in the articles. This paper looks at the reasons for the limited implementation of DOIs and makes suggestions as to how usage can be expanded in China.
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:supported:for=2+1p:against=0+0p | v55:sufficiency

More for · 2
2023 · cited by 6
Almost 25 years ago, the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) was implemented with the purpose of providing a unique and persistent form of document identification. As DOIs can be assigned to any object, journals rapidly adopted their use as it eases the process of identifying a specific document, thus increasing its visibility. However, while studying the impact of papers published by Chilean researchers in disciplines related to Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities, we noticed that some journals published a considerable proportion of documents without DOIs. Thus, we questioned if this was due to a lack of DOI adoption by these journals or if it was a database processing error. Our findings indicate that while most journals have adopted the use of DOI for article-type documents, many of the Web of Science and Scopus records do not include this information. To overcome this issue, databases need to ensure the accuracy and consistency of their data, while the editorial management team of each journal ought to confirm that all the metadata from their articles has been properly registered by these databases. Undoubtedly, the use of DOI benefits all academics as it facilitates the discoverability and retrieval of the published articles.
2017 · cited by 2
The present study seeks to investigate the use of the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) in the scientific journals of Communication and Information and, providing new integration utilities with the Lattes Platform. In this sense, it aims to inform the existing titles in Communication Information in electronic format, demonstrate the importance of DOI in the integration with the Lattes Platform in order to guarantee author credibility and analyze the characteristics of publications that have DOI. The methodology used for the development of this study is bibliographic, research with descriptive-descriptive characteristics. From the development of the research, it is inferred that of all the analyzed journals (33 journals), 10 titles in the evaluation of 2013 and 06 titles of the evaluation of 2014 present DOI in their publications, all have WebQualis classification, Qualis A1 in the area Communication and Information. Most publications are international and only 3 titles are national. It is necessary that journals, principally national ones, accompany new technologies such as DOI for objects and ORCID for the identification of people, bringing more mechanisms that guarantee authors 'credibility and to bring the researchers' connection, and both can already be adopted in the Platform Lattes.
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt