Crossref metadata comparison
Resolve without guessing
Remove labels such as “doi:” and construct the HTTPS resolver address. Do not casually change the stored string. On the destination page, read title, creator and object type. A redirect to a publisher domain is not yet a content match.
If resolution fails, inspect copied punctuation, truncation and line breaks. Search title or author in the registry instead of inventing characters. Record check date and outcome, distinguishing a temporary access problem from an unregistered string.
Why registry and document can differ
Depositors supply metadata, which may contain errors or several date fields. Online-first and issue dates can both be legitimate. Titles may be corrected and creators represented through initials, ORCID records or group names. Understand the difference and identify your cited manifestation.
Never trust a reference-manager import blindly. Check diacritics, creator order, pages, volume, issue and article number. A DOI supplements rather than replaces the full reference required by the citation style.
Related objects and publication status
A preprint, accepted manuscript, version of record, dataset and correction may each have a DOI. Inspect landing pages and registered relations such as “is version of”, “is supplement to” or “updates”. Cite what you read and used. Do not transfer pagination from another version.
An erratum may alter the passage you rely upon. A retracted object's DOI commonly remains active, so successful resolution is not a current-status guarantee. The correction guide continues this check.
Test evidential fit after identity
Correct identity cannot show that a paper supports your sentence. Open the full text and map the claim to a precise passage. Examine population, method, result status and qualifications. If the paper merely cites another study for the proposition, consider locating that primary evidence.
- Normalise and resolve the DOI.
- Open the registry record.
- Compare core fields with the original.
- Determine version and status.
- Check the relevant full-text passage.
- Correct imported metadata manually.
- Save status and check date.
The source evaluation hub covers further appraisal. For an item without an identifier, use source without a DOI. The scholarly sources overview explains quality and evidential function.
Common bibliography faults
- The DOI leads to a similarly titled but different work.
- Imported metadata reverse given and family names.
- Print and online dates are mixed without a style decision.
- Preprint pages accompany the version-of-record DOI.
- The correction is cited instead of the corrected article, or vice versa.
- Trailing punctuation breaks resolution.
- A dataset is misclassified as a journal article.
Run a technical resolution check across the list, then inspect bibliographic matching manually. These are separate stages. For central sources, retain a short verification note giving registry, version and passage.
Where several DOI appear on a page, determine their roles. One may identify the article, another the dataset, a cited reference or a correction. Location near the title does not remove the need to read labels. Never select the first identifier solely because it resolves.
Handle edge cases in the metadata comparison
A DOI may resolve correctly yet identify a chapter, dataset, preprint or correction notice while the reference claims to describe a journal article. Do not stop at a successful redirect: inspect the registered resource type. If title and authors seem related but the type differs, look for a relationship such as “is version of”, “is corrected by” or “is part of”. These relations often explain why several identifiers appear around one research contribution.
Name differences require care rather than instant correction. Initials, diacritics, changed surnames and ordering conventions may vary between the publisher page and registry record. Where available, compare ORCID identifiers, affiliations and the complete author list. A substantially different first author or title is a reason to pause, even when the DOI has a plausible syntax. A well-formed identifier proves persistence, not that it belongs to the work in front of you.
Keep a compact verification note containing the DOI submitted, access date, registry, returned title, resource type, publication status and your decision. A screenshot can preserve the interface state but should not replace textual metadata. If the registry and publisher page conflict, do not cite by guesswork. Record the discrepancy, search for a correction or version relation and use only the manifestation whose identity can be established. This small log turns a casual link check into evidence another reviewer can repeat.