Crossref Blog

https://perma.cc/ It is built for the task, and assuming worse case scenario of sunset, it would be ingested into the Wayback Machine. Note that both the Internet Archive and Cloudflare are supporting partners (bottom of page). (https://doi.org/ is also an option, but not as accessible to a casual user; the DOI Foundation pointed me to https://www.crossref.org/ for adhoc DOI registration, although I have not had time to research further)

OpenAlex[0] and CrossRef[1] is a pretty good source for this. [0] https://openalex.org/ [1] https://www.crossref.org/

Crossref | Remote +/- 2 UTC | 80K-124K EUR | https://www.crossref.org Principal R&D Developer. Join Crossref and help solve problems in open scholarly infrastructure. We’re looking for a developer who will thrive taking messy, vague, and often contradictory requirements and working with the community to refine those requirements into a practical implementation plan. (CLOSING SOON!) https://www.crossref.org/jobs/2022-06-17-principal-rnd-developer/

In my experience the quality of the BibTeX offered by Google Scholar is really low, too much missing or incorrect information. Crossref is much better: https://www.crossref.org/

Ahh, yes I see now that your website is doing parsing, and that linking up with another service to match, say, DOIs, would be a significant amount of additional work. Still, yours is a great tool! You're probably already aware of it, but it might be worth checking out CrossRef's Simple Text Query http://www.crossref.org/SimpleTextQuery/

Quick way to impliment what's requested is to set up search engine/web scrape of article and find the article's doi number. if the article has doi number, then can quickly find/filter on the requested statistics on-line and generate a personal interest ranking metric without using 'AI'. aka no peer review / subject field expert review(s), rank as 'don't display' CrossRef[0] is a site that has related direct/indirect doi / paper statistics. note: Journals and publishers have their own platforms where you can access usage statistics for papers with DOIs. Things done prior to DOI's might require some AI/chatgpt stuff. abstracts/synopsis section of papers and/or search engine AI generated synopsis/summary might be a quick/easy way to assess 'technical content'. [0] : http://www.crossref.org/ --- 'state of the art' side note(s): 'State of the art' kind of depends on subject matter / intended context. Automobile industry, state of the are is good for about 1yr. Digital electronics, may be as little as 24hrs when the next patch is pushed out. Researching what was 'state of the art' in 1850's ( aka mechanical fax[1]) bit different context than 'current now' state of the art. [1] mechanical / digital fax : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fax --- HN customization via browser plug-ins side notes: One potential option would be to request modifications to a web browser plugin to be able to 'use/generate a customized metric of how to curate/filter what gets display from…

Just the tip of the huge iceberg. https://www.crossref.org/ Crossref works with over 19,000 members from 151 countries including institutions, funders, publishers, preprint servers, libraries, and more, collecting metadata on research objects and making it openly available via an API that sees over 1.1 billion queries each month. https://retractionwatch.com/ The Center For Scientific Integrity – the parent non-profit of Retraction Watch – and containing about 43,000 retractions. Crossref works with over 19,000 members from 151 countries including institutions, funders, publishers, preprint servers, libraries, and more, collecting metadata on research objects and making it openly available via an API that sees over 1.1 billion queries each month. The slow cleaning up of "the science" and hopefully a return to proper science https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2023/09/27/making-retra…

Hi there, Well, that's a tricky question to answer! :) At the moment we use DOIs to link papers / citations, and get our information on DOIs from crossref (https://www.crossref.org/). So every DOI there is also in our system (and any citation coming from a source without a DOI currently won't be picked up). From crossref we also have metadata on which publications a given paper references, so we can always show information on how many publications cite a given paper ("traditional citations"). As for our database of Smart Citations (the extracted in-text citation statements) -- the answer is that it depends on our ability to access full-text articles to actually do the citation statement extraction. We're constantly growing in this area through new indexing agreements with publishers and so on. To your specific question about that DOI, here is the corresponding scite report for that paper: https://scite.ai/reports/a-unified-framework-for-coupling-dZAL2j I see that we identified 371 distinct citing publications (and extracted 374 in-text citation statements from those publications). Can you let me know where you saw it say "no citations"? That sounds like a bug... I'll take a look. You can email me here: [email protected] - Ashish

To solve your immediate problem, just grab the DOI here: https://apps.crossref.org/SimpleTextQuery They also have an API from which you can fetch DOIs in various ways. DOIs are a solution to the issue of having persistent, publisher-independent links that will always resolve, even if a journal changes publisher or goes out of business. Academia uses them because link rot is unavoidable across the web, but there must always be a link to the publication that resolves so that when someone in 2070 wants to follow a citation in the references of a work published today, they can do that. It's the same thinking that underlies people pointing to the internet archive in Wikipedia citations. It's a layer of redirection, but in a way that preserves accessibility for the long term. It's also the same thinking that underlies DNS. There shouldn't be one company that controls how to resolve an IP address to a domain name, and likewise you shouldn't have to go through one publisher to resolve a reference to a research article. As a side note, Crossref is staffed with exactly the sort of web geeks that you would see at an Internet Archive get-together (#). So I hear your frustrations, but I think you're giving DOIs short shrift. (#) I mean, just look at this. A dump of all journal metadata on Academic Torrents. Is that not cool? https://www.crossref.org/blog/free-public-data-file-of-112-million-cro…

OpenAlex has 240M. https://docs.openalex.org/api-entities/works CORE has 431M. https://core.ac.uk/data Crossref has 165M. https://www.crossref.org/blog/2025-public-data-file-now-available/ These datasets are all biased towards work published in the digital age, but it's important to note that work is coming out much faster now than it used to.

You can get lots of metadata from Crossref.org. See https://www.crossref.org/services/metadata-retrieval/

- "To complete the download of the full dataset, please fill out this form, which helps us report usage back to our funders, and we'll immediately provide you with a download link." https://unpaywall.org/products/snapshot Is that dataset different from this un-gated one? They're both indexes of Crossref DOI's, and they're both 120 million records long. https://www.crossref.org/blog/new-public-data-file-120-million-metadat…

Discussions about problems with the DOI system and suggestions for potential replacements for it come up every few months. So a few years ago, I wrote something that helps outline some of the issues one would need to address: https://www.crossref.org/blog/rehashing-pids-without-stabbing-myself-i…

I've seen a lot of discussion on publication dates, drafts, acceptance, preprints, publication, revisions, etc. However this is the first time I've seen someone mention the research period. It's a fascinating idea. If you want to push this, perhaps an avenue might be to talk to crossref. While they're not the only DOI registration agency, they cover most western content and are good with their APIs. They regularly have events and meetups, and have always been good for a chat. https://www.crossref.org/events/ They're a (relatively) central point for this kind of metadata. > You may be in a position to push on that idea though! Ah, unfortunately probably not, I'm very much on the receiving end of the data. > Papers are always so careful to point to grant info (when applicable), There's a lot here - surprisingly common for this not to be the case! Funders definitely want this though.