Visit the main Crossref website

DOI with wrong year

Dear,

I have a problem: the DOI registration has a different year of publication.

For example, the DOI is 2020 and the publication is 2021. That is, the DOI record has the wrong year. This is a serious problem because an article published in 2021 is with the DOI 2020 or 2019. I have several cases like this.

The correct thing is to update the DOI after the final publication of the article.

How do I resolve this?

The cases below are the same: the year registered in the DOI differs from the correct year of publication:

https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.21171/ges.v14i37.2749

https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1108/MIP-02-2019-0115

https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1108/AJAR-07-2020-0056

I appreciate if anyone can help.

Emerson Wagner Mainardes

FUCAPE Business School - Brazil

2 Likes

Hi,

The you need to check your doi setup, or if you activate manually through crossref webdeposit or upload xml to doi.crossref.org. Kindly check the xml. Since, what is wrote there, is gonna active what it is.

For example for your article on Brand equity of commoditized products of famous brands | Emerald Insight The article publication date (stated on website) is 2019. However, issue publlication date is 2020. I am sure the doi is activated after the article online (in 2019). So, the metadata show 2019 for article.
If you author of this articles, you need talk to the journal editor or publisher of the article for more information regarding of this.

Thanks.

1 Like

Hello @emerson,

Thanks for your message, and welcome to the community forum.

All DOI metadata is provided to us by our publisher members. Crossref does not update, edit, or correct publisher-provided metadata directly.

For the fastest possible response, you may wish to reach out to the publisher members directly to ask them to review and update the metadata they have registered with us for these DOIs.

This DOI 10.21171/ges.v14i37.2749 has an online publication date of 2019 registered with us, as you can see here: Antecedentes da intenção de repetição de voto no mesmo político

This DOI 10.1108/MIP-02-2019-0115 has an online publication date of 2019 registered with us and a print publication date of 2020, as you can see from the full metadata record here: Brand equity of commoditized products of famous brands

Finally, this DOI 10.1108/AJAR-07-2020-0056 appears to have a print publication date of 2020 and 2021 registered with us: Accounting services quality: a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Kind regards,
Isaac

1 Like

Hi!!

Isaac, is this the best practice for Ahead of Print type of publication?

For example, the DOI 10.1108/MIP-02-2019-0115 has an online publication date of 2019 because the manuscript was published as an Ahead of Print in 2019. I don’t even know if this journal is actually printed, but Emerson’s article joined a volume/issue in 2021, and then the metadata was updated with issue, volume, pagination, and the year 2020 as a print date.

Is that how it should be done? When the manuscript is not an Ahead of Print anymore… what should be updated in the metadata year? :slight_smile:

I exchanged some words with Emerson previously and he explained this situation to me.

1 Like

Hi @BrunaErlandsson,

Thanks for following up on this one. So, best practice for this situation, as you’ve explained it and I understand it, would require an XML submission to us. It would look like this:

The article itself - DOI 10.1108/MIP-02-2019-0115 - should be registered with the online publication date of 2019, since that is the first time that it appeared online.

Since that article joined a volume/issue in 2021, the volume- and issue-level metadata registered with the DOI should include an online publication date of 2021.

Since most people will cite the version of record and it seems like that final version of record was available (and possible printed) in 2020, we’d recommend including the print date in the metadata for the article as 2020. Again, that’s most likely how others will cite the work, so including the print date of 2020 will help our algorithm match to this work if and when it is cited.

Does all of that make sense?

This XML example does have different issue- and article-level online and print publication dates, so you may wish to review it: examples/journal_article_4.4.2.xml · master · crossref / Schema · GitLab if you’re able or willing to produce your own XML.

My best,
Isaac

2 Likes

Hi Isaac! Thanks for always replying with so much attention! I understood everything!

I would like to invite @Emerson here again to explain why this date/metadata is so important to him as an author (it is totally related to the Brazilian system - CNPq/CV Lattes - score as a author, and so on, which he understands better than me :)) - and then we can see if there is anything we can do to help his situation:)

2 Likes

Sure thing, @BrunaErlandsson. We’re always happy to help! Great questions as always.

:slight_smile:

1 Like

My problem is that the DOI registration has a different year of publication.
For example, the DOI is 2020 and the publication is 2021. That is, the DOI record has the wrong year. Considering that the evaluation of CAPES (which evaluates Brazilian researchers) is every 4 years, an article published in 2021, but with the DOI with the year 2020 or 2019, it is not valid for the next 4 years (2021-2024) and may not enter previous years (2016-2020) if publication takes place after the CAPES assessment. Did you understand the problem? I miss the article as part of my evaluation as a researcher.
When we insert the publications in the lattes curriculum (Brazilian system of academic curriculum of researchers and source of researchers’ evaluation), the system automatically pulls the data from the DOI, even if incorrect. I have 5 cases like this. The alternative is to remove the DOI and manually input the article data into the lattes curriculum, but then I lose the citations.
In summary, the correct thing is to update the DOI after the definitive publication of the article, as this is hurting me a lot. DOI must faithfully represent the article; if it is published in 2021, the DOI must be from 2021 and not any other year, as this is an error.

1 Like

Prof. Emerson, thanks for explaining in details, I think it is very clear.

However, I’m not sure about this part (see below). Does he really lose the citations, @ifarley?
The alternative is to remove the DOI and manually input the article data into the lattes curriculum, but then I lose the citations.

Because, if we find out that you do not lose citations by adding the article manually, thats actually a good solution for the problem.

I think the case here is a CV LATTES problem and maybe we should contact them instead. But lets wait for Isaacs opinion.

As Isaac showed, the publishers are actually updating the metadata - by not erasing the online-date-metadata and adding print-date-metadata - which sound right… right? :woozy_face:

Rachel and Edilson (@rlammey, @rlammey1 @edamasio), would you guys have comments on this? I would appreciate it :heart:

Hi @BrunaErlandsson and @emerson ,

Prof. Emerson would not lose the citation(s) in Crossref, but I don’t think that’s the issue. He’s saying that manually toggling the metadata in Lattes has that result for him, which, unfortunately, there’s not much I can do to remedy that, as it seems specific to the Lattes system.

As I said above, all DOI metadata is provided to us by our publisher members. Crossref does not update, edit, or correct publisher-provided metadata directly, since the responsibility for registration of the metadata sits with our publisher members. I can flag the potential error to our contacts at the publisher member, but I simply cannot update it without their permission, since it is their content.

I wish I had a more satisfying answer. I understand it’s a challenging position to be in.

-Isaac

2 Likes

Hi Isaac!

Yeah, thats the point… I do not think this is an error from the publishers, as far as I understood, they are doing it right…

Also, since you confirmed he is not losing citations, for me its clear that this is a Lattes issue, not something to do with Crossref or the metadata informed by publishers.

Thats why I would like to hear from @edamasio too, since he is probably more aware of Lattes than me (my knowledge on this is really limited :frowning:)

Anyway, Isaac, thanks once again for helping us to understand better all of this :gift_heart:

2 Likes

Thanks @BrunaErlandsson . Yes, let’s see what @edamasio has to add here.

@Emerson, @AylaDendasck just gave me some valuable information that might be useful for your case:

  • She said this is not a Lattes issue, because CAPES does not get the information straight from Lattes (yet!).
  • The data evaluated from CAPES is the data informed manually on the Sucupira Platform
  • So, the person who is responsible to fill the Sucupira Platform should be aware of this to make sure your publications do count and do not get lost between evaluations

I hope this makes sense :roll_eyes: :thinking:

2 Likes

Hi @BrunaErlandsson @emerson @ifarley

I see that the problem is related to different publication date in 2 Brazilian systems, Lattes which is fed with Crossref metadata, fed by the member editor.

The data for CAPES is filled in with information from Lattes and the original document, and it is not automatic.

Thus, the publication year issues must be set by the editor correctly. Avoiding these different definitions on each platform. Complete and complete metadata avoids these questions.

We are training in Brazil for editors to avoid these mistakes.

Twice dates of publication at different systems.

1 Like

I thank the help of all you.
The problem is that the information in Sucupira of CAPES has to be the same as the CV Lattes of CNPq.
Otherwise, the information is invalidated.
Lattes must always be correct because of this.
The missing citations I mentioned is that Lattes captures citations if the paper has the DOI; otherwise, the quotes from the paper do not appear in Lattes, which is very bad.

1 Like

Thank you, @emerson @edamasio and @BrunaErlandsson !

Do any of you happen to have a contact at Lattes or CAPES that would be receptive to discussing this further with me? If so, would you email me their contact info to support@crossref.org?

Thanks again,
Isaac

1 Like

Of course, this would be awesome:)

I will send you contacts very soon!

1 Like

Excellent, Bruna! If you know those folks, if you could introduce me that might also help us get to a common understanding. Many, many, many thanks!

1 Like