, Volume 110, Issue 3, pp 1453–1469 | Cite as

Availability of digital object identifiers in publications archived by PubMed

  • Christophe Boudry
  • Ghislaine Chartron


Digital object identifiers (DOIs) were launched in 1997 to facilitate the long-term access and identification of objects in digital environments. The objective of the present investigation is to assess the DOI availability of articles in biomedical journals indexed in the PubMed database and to complete this investigation with a geographical analysis of journals by the country of publisher. Articles were randomly selected from PubMed using their PubMed identifier and were downloaded from and processed through developed Hypertext Preprocessor language scripts. The first part of the analysis focuses on the period 1966–2015 (50 years). Of the 496,665 articles studied over this period, 201,055 have DOIs (40.48%). Results showed that the percentage of articles with DOIs began to increase for articles published in the 2000s, with spectacular growth in the years 2002–2003, then reached a peak in 2015. Data on countries showed that some countries gradually implemented DOIs over the period 1966 to 2015 (the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands), while some did not (Russia, the Czech Republic, and Romania). The second part of the analysis focuses on the year 2015 and includes 268,790 articles published in 2015, randomly selected to evaluate the current implementation of DOIs. In 2015, 86.42% of articles had DOIs. The geographical analysis of countries of publishers showed that some countries (Russia, Thailand, and Ukraine) still assigned few DOIs to articles in 2015. Thus, if the scientific community aims to increase the number and the usefulness of services rendered by DOIs, efforts must be made to generalize their use by all persons involved in scientific publication, particularly publishers.


Digital object identifier PubMed Country Publisher Biology Medicine Publication Journal article 


  1. ALM. (2016). Retrieved from
  2. Altmetric. (2016). Retrieved from
  3. Boudry, C., Denion, E., Mortemousque, B., & Mouriaux, F. (2016). Trends and topics in eye disease research in PubMed from 2010 to 2014. PeerJ, 4, e1557. doi: 10.7717/peerj.1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boudry, C., & Mouriaux, F. (2015). Eye neoplasms research: A bibliometric analysis from 1966 to 2012. European Journal of Ophthalmology, 25(4), 357–365. doi: 10.5301/ejo.5000556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braile, D. M. (2011). After the impact factor, the DOI. Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, 26(3), 1–2. doi: 10.5935/1678-9741.20110001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brase, J., Lautenschlager, M., & Sens, I. (2015). The tenth anniversary of assigning DOI names to scientific data and a five year history of DataCite. D-Lib Magazine. doi: 10.1045/january2015-brase.Google Scholar
  7. Carnevale, R., & Aronsky, D. (2007). The life and death of URLs in five biomedical informatics journals. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 76(4), 269–273. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chandrakar, R. (2006). Digital object identifier system: An overview. The Electronic Library, 24(4), 445–452. doi: 10.1108/02640470610689151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crossref Event Data. (2016). Retrieved from
  10. Crossref initiatives will support reporting to funders|Research Information. (2016). Retrieved from
  11. (2016). Retrieved from
  12. :publisher fees. (2016). Retrieved from
  13. CrossRef’s DOI Event Tracker Pilot—Crossref Blog. (2015). Retrieved from
  14. DeRisi, S., Kennison, R., & Twyman, N. (2003). The what and whys of DOIs. PLoS Biology, 1(2), e57. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0000057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Digital Object Identifier System Handbook. (2016). Retrieved from
  16. DOI display guidelines. (2016). Retrieved from
  17. Ducut, E., Liu, F., & Fontelo, P. (2008). An update on uniform resource locator (URL) decay in MEDLINE abstracts and measures for its mitigation. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-8-23.Google Scholar
  18. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, scopus, web of science, and google scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal: Official Publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 22(2), 338–342. doi: 10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franceschini, F., Maisano, D., & Mastrogiacomo, L. (2014). Errors in DOI indexing by bibliometric databases. Scientometrics, 102(3), 2181–2186. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1503-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Galligan, F., & Dyas-Correia, S. (2013). Altmetrics: Rethinking the way we measure. Serials Review, 39(1), 56–61. doi: 10.1080/00987913.2013.10765486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. González-Valiente, C. L., Pacheco-Mendoza, J., & Arencibia-Jorge, R. (2016). A review of altmetrics as an emerging discipline for research evaluation. Learned Publishing, 29(4), 229–238. doi: 10.1002/leap.1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gorraiz, J., Melero-Fuentes, D., Gumpenberger, C., & Valderrama-Zurián, J.-C. (2016). Availability of digital object identifiers (DOIs) in web of science and scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 98–109. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0120495. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2014). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1145–1163. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1221-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Home—NLM Catalog—NCBI. (2016). Retrieved from
  26. Honor, L. B., Haselgrove, C., Frazier, J. A., & Kennedy, D. N. (2016). Data citation in neuroimaging: Proposed best practices for data identification and attribution. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 10, 34. doi: 10.3339/fninf.2016.00034.Google Scholar
  27. ISO 26324:2012—Information and documentation—Digital object identifier system. (2012). Retrieved from
  28. Khedmatgozar, H. R., & Alipour-Hafezi, M. (2015). A basic comparative framework for evaluation of digital identifier systems. Journal of Digital Information Management, 13(3), 191.Google Scholar
  29. Neumann, J., & Brase, J. (2014). DataCite and DOI names for research data. Journal of Computer Aided Molecular Design, 28(10), 1035–1041. doi: 10.1007/s10822-014-9776-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Park, S., Zo, H., Ciganek, A. P., & Lim, G. G. (2011). Examining success factors in the adoption of digital object identifier systems. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 10(6), 626–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paskin, N. (1999). The digital object identifier system: Digital technology meets content management. Interlending and Document Supply, 27(1), 13–16. doi: 10.1108/02641619910255829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paskin, N. (2010). Digital object identifier (DOI) system. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, 3, 1586–1592.Google Scholar
  33. Plumx. (2015). Retrieved from
  34. Rasmussen, P. G., & Andersen, J. P. (2013). Altmetrics: An alternate perspective on research evaluation. ScieCom Info, 96(2). Retrieved from
  35. RECODE. (2015). Retrieved from June 13, 2016.
  36. Rosenblatt, B. (1997). The digital object identifier: Solving the dilemma of copyright protection online. Journal of Electronic Publishing. doi: 10.3998/3336451.0003.204.Google Scholar
  37. RP-16-2013 PIE-J (short URL)—National Information Standards Organization. (2013). Retrieved from
  38. Sidman, D., & Davidson, T. (2001). A practical guide to automating the digital supply chain with the digital object identifier (DOI). Publishing Research Quarterly, 17(2), 9–23. doi: 10.1007/s12109-001-0019-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sieck, S. (2003). Using the DOI to improve profitability in publishers’ E-Commerce operations. EPS white paper series.Google Scholar
  40. Simmonds, A. W. (1999). The digital object identifier (DOI). Publishing Research Quarterly, 15(2), 10–13. doi: 10.1007/s12109-999-0022-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131–1143. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Swan, A. (2010). The open access citation advantage: Studies and results to date. Retrieved from
  43. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64841. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tolwinska, A. (2015). Need to know what’s going on with an article DOI? The wait is over. Science Editor, 38(3/4), 106–108.Google Scholar
  45. United Nations Statistics Division-Standard Country and Area Codes Classifications (M49). (2016). Retrieved from
  46. Valderrama-Zurián, J.-C., Aguilar-Moya, R., Melero-Fuentes, D., & Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2015). A systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 570–576. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vardakas, K. Z., Tsopanakis, G., Poulopoulou, A., & Falagas, M. E. (2015). An analysis of factors contributing to PubMed’s growth. Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 592–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wagner, C., Gebremichael, M. D., Taylor, M. K., & Soltys, M. J. (2009). Disappearing act: Decay of uniform resource locators in health care management journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 97(2), 122–130. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.97.2.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wang, J. (2007). Digital object identifiers and their use in libraries. Serials Review, 33(3), 161–164. doi: 10.1016/j.serrev.2007.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zotero|Home. (2016). Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Média Normandie, Université de Caen Normandie (UNICAEN)Normandie UnivCaen Cedex 5France
  2. 2.URFIST, Ecole Nationale des ChartesPSL Research UniversityParisFrance
  3. 3.Laboratoire “Dispositifs d’Information et de Communication à l’Ère Numérique”, EA7339Conservatoire National des Arts et MétiersParisFrance

Personalised recommendations