More Competition for Crossref?

Oh boy, another one.

Oh boy, another one.

Another persistent identifier company has emerged: Unique Object Identifier.

I learned recently about the launch of a new persistent identifier targeting the scholarly publishing domain: Unique Object Identifier. In January of this year, I wrote about an earlier effort, the Scientific Object Identifier. Pretty soon, our objects will be drowning in identifiers.

The Unique Object Identifier system, which appears to be an implementation of the handle system, was started by a firm called Savari Technologies Pvt. Ltd. It is based in Pune, India and appears to be chiefly an Internet Service Provider.

The predominant identifier system in scholarly publishing is made available by Cossref, a non-profit organization with wide membership of companies in the scholarly publishing industry — perhaps too wide. Crossref markets the ubiquitous DOI, the digital object identifier.

Another circular logo.

Another circular logo.

As somebody once said, “The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them.”

Let’s hope the number of “unique” identifiers doesn’t surpass the number of predatory publishers

23 Responses to More Competition for Crossref?

  1. Please Can I trust the journal below;
    International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS)

  2. shrekanth says:

    Can i trust this UOI as an alternative for DOI

  3. Nepster says:

    I think it is a better low cost option than using the high cost doi system. Publishers must be benefited. They are offering free service for educational institutions and all government organizations.

  4. IndRes says:

    Why you say uoi is bad.
    What make doi legitimate

  5. S P says:

    An interesting post, Jeff, Thanks.
    All these stuffs called ‘DOI, UOI, etc.’ are useless and money-oriented projects.
    Their ‘unique’ goal is to collect money on the back of naive researchers and publishers.
    Among the conditions of attribution of DOI is that the publisher should keep his journal online otherwise the DOI won’t work! Just ridiculous and senseless.
    If publishers should keep their journals forever, then what does DOI serve for, supposedly to be a persistent and permanent identifier if one should keep his journal alive?
    This condition clearly illustrates the hidden aim of DOI for money only, nothing else.
    Otherwise, what is the usefulness of using DOI that redirect you to the journal itself when searching an article by its DOI?
    What is the added value of DOI in published articles? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
    Publishers pay for DOIs hundreds of dollars per year plus 1-2 dollars per article and then they claim not to be for profit!
    Millions dollars per year and they say not-for-profit! Fantastic! How much should they win if they were for profit, then?
    DOI are useless but only for enriching their founder partners.
    DOI is less than 20 years old and journals and publishers have been working very well for centuries without DOI or any other so-called identifier.
    The best identifier ever for publications or any other object or material is the author’s name, his article’s title (or object) and the date of publication (or manufacturing), nothing else.
    This information is the most persistent and memorable information ever than a complex and long series of letters and numbers, so-called DOI!

  6. Kunal Joe says:


    Recently I noticed, that the research paper which was published in 2014 was republished by the journal “Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology (JATIT)” in 2016. The duplication can be found at:

    My question is that does the publisher check for plagiarism of the submitted papers?

    How does this journal still survive in SCOPUS?

    Your opinion is most expected.

    • Journals on my list regularly publish articles containing significant amounts of plagiarism. I am not at all surprised to hear about this new case. Scopus does not always sufficiently screen for quality and includes many journals that should not be in any scholarly index, such as this one. I don’t know whether the publisher checks for plagiarism or whether it cares about plagiarism. Most likely, all it cares about is getting money from authors.

      • Kunal Joe says:


        Is it compulsory for all the online journals to go for digital archiving and preservation.

        Can we say that all the journals that do not support for the digital archiving are predatory journals?

      • Digital preservation is not compulsory, but it is a standard that should be followed by all scholarly journals.
        Not having any standard digital preservation policies in place is a factor in determining whether a journal is predatory or not.

      • Kunal Joe says:

        Dear Sir,

        It has been noticed that most of the scholarly journals do not openly specify their contact address in the website.

        Can I assume that the journal do not specify the address is a predatory journal?

        Thank you.

      • Yes, that is among the things I examine when I evaluate or analyze a journal or publisher. Also, some give headquarters location information, but it is false. This is a criteria as well.

      • Kunal Joe says:

        Dear Sir,

        I come across the journal “International Journal of Computer Networks and Applications” This journal seems to be good in my opinion because Ithenticate software used to detect the plagiarism and DOI is enabled. Acceptance rate of this journal is very less (Even my paper got rejected) and free journal.

        I feel quality is maintained by IJCNA but I noticed that the journal is in your list.

        Does the journal has any drawback to retain in your list?

        I feel the journal is good and what is your opinion?

      • So, someone whose paper gets rejected from an obviously low-quality journal leaves a comment here telling me how great the journal is.
        I don’t buy it.
        To answer your question, I find the International Journal of Computer Networks and Applications (IJCNA) to be completely bogus.

  7. bessi says:

    Dear Jeffrey please go to Oriental Journal of Chemistry, its predatory journal

  8. A D says:

    CrossRef (the owner of DOI) is a partner of Nature, so using and paying DOI is an indirect support to the tyranny and monopoly of Nature.
    To be avoided.

Leave a Reply -- All comments are subject to moderation, including removal.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: