[Eril-l] Crossref multiple resolution of DOIs and multiple canonical archives: whither DOI vs openurl?

[Electronic Resources in Libraries discussion list]

Hi, all!

This is about DOIs for articles that have more than one "canonical"/official publisher home.
That can happen, and does frequently, when a journal changes publishers and BOTH publishers maintain an official archive for PCA libraries.

For instance, the 2006-2011 of the journal, Frontiers of History in China, where Brill has 2006-present and Springer-Nature, the previous publisher, has 2006-2011. Our only access is on SN because we did not continue the subscription in 2012 when Brill got it. But the DOI in our discovery service only leads to Brill, not SN.

The NISO Journal Transfer database, https://journaltransfer.issn.org/, documents when journals transfer and includes whether the archive up to that point will be hosted by the transferring or receiving publisher. Sometimes it is actually both.

It was recently brought to my attention that Crossref has a "multiple resolution" (MR) system, such that when following some DOI links, the user gets a list of links to each of the publisher platforms that are still "official" (I think by NISO's concept of that).

I asked Crossref about what I should do to get an "MR" for this journal.

This is part of the reply I got:
However, just to set expectations, multiple resolution is used quite rarely.  Most publishers prefer that DOIs resolved directly to the version of the content on their particular platform.   And, the feedback we get from librarians about multiple resolution has honestly been primarily negative, because they don't like users to be faced with another decision point or extra friction in accessing the content.   (we do have a workaround to 'bypass' multiple resolution, for that reason, and resolve directly to either the primary or one of the secondary URLs)

That said, the more typical solution is for libraries to link to content, not directly via the DOI, but using an OpenURL link resolver or discovery tool integration that will direct users to the appropriate subscription version for which they have full text access.  It's possible to integrate metadata from Crossref into such a tool, to facilitate linking more effectively.


As I read and re-read that answer, it occurred to me to question whether the entire point of the DOI system is breaking down. When Crossref itself tells me not to use DOI links, but instead openurl links, which is where we were 20 years ago and whose problems were a big part of the reason for supporting the adoption of the DOI ecosystem in the first place, I feel like we are moving backwards in a context that I thought we had solved already.

I know that DOI still works for "most" situations. But openurl also worked for "most situations", and still does. I worked at a library that was one of the very earliest adopters of openurl, and even wrote my own openurl resolver for my library before the commercial products existed. I have a long memory of how we got from there to here.

So I wanted to consult your collective wisdom about this issue, both from the immediate "best service to patrons today" perspective and the "long-term where should our ecosystem be going next?" perspective.

Your thought would be most welcome!



Melissa Belvadi
Collections Librarian
University of Prince Edward Island
mbelvadi at upei.ca<mailto:mbelvadi at upei.ca>  902-566-0581
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4433-0189
my public calendar<https://outlook.office365.com/owa/calendar/0fbab27c909e4493be65313bd66d66b6@upei.ca/5fa60af92c6d451c9ddf90c0bb11e00f15552192987609852692/calendar.html>
Make an appointment<https://mbelvadi.youcanbook.me/> via YouCanBookMe
My pronouns are ಅವರು/ಅವರನ್ನು
My emails are sent during the hours that I work and I understand that you will respond during the hours that you work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.eril-l.org/pipermail/eril-l-eril-l.org/attachments/20251020/ab95740a/attachment.htm>