Research Policy on Crossref

Position paper: persistent identifiers in research infrastructure policy

Ginny Hendricks — Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

PIDs in research infrastructure policy: the need for a holistic approach

Persistent identifiers (PIDs) have become central to national and international open research strategies, but identifiers alone—however well-designed—cannot deliver the connected, open record that research depends on. Effective research infrastructure rests on three interdependent elements: open, persistent identifiers; rich, open, and linked metadata; and the sustainable governance and operation of the organisations involved. Crossref urges policymakers to evaluate PID infrastructure holistically, looking beyond the identifier itself to the metadata, services, interoperability, and long-term sustainability that provide the real-world value sought.

National and international PID strategies are multiplying, and the decisions being made now will shape the scholarly record for decades. Those decisions are often framed as a choice of identifier; what is really being chosen is infrastructure: the metadata, services, governance, and community commitment that sustain the record over time. Choosing shared, open infrastructure never means lock-in—openly licensed metadata and community governance safeguard sovereignty by design. This paper sets out what we think that choice involves, with worked examples from the UK, Portugal, Canada, and South Africa.

Strategists

Understand how infrastructure choices shape the long-term success of a research strategy. The macro view: why identifiers, metadata, and governance need to be evaluated together.

Decision-makers

Know what to require before a decision is made. Criteria for evaluating PID infrastructure as a whole, including interoperability, sustainability, and governance.

Practitioners

Learn what good implementation looks like before you commit. Practical requirements for the metadata and services that make an identifier system useful in daily operation.

Key positions

PIDs are a means to an end. The value of an identifier system lies in the richness of its associated metadata, the scalability of the services it enables, and the needs it meets for the communities it serves.

PIDs can be complementary rather than competitive. Research uses many identifier types; they coexist productively, each serving the community and use case for which they were designed.

Not all DOIs are equivalent. Different DOI Registration Agencies offer fundamentally different services, metadata, and governance. Concrete requirements and expected outcomes for each entity being identified—not just identifier type—are therefore essential in any policy or implementation.

Interoperability is critical. Implementing identifier systems without evaluating their interoperability undermines the goal of a connected research record. National strategies must ensure that proposed PID infrastructure connects to the broader global research ecosystem.

Sustainability and governance matter as much as technical standards. Community governance and demonstrated financial resilience should be taken into account in any assessment of infrastructure organisations.

Open infrastructure—not PID adoption alone—is the foundation of a connected, open research record. Strategies should measure success based on the openness, connectivity, and reach of the surrounding infrastructure and its services.

What this paper covers

What is a PID, and what isn’t it? An identifier is a stable label; its value depends entirely on the metadata, services, and governance around it. You don’t come home from the supermarket announcing you’ve bought 12 barcodes.
DOIs: PIDs for ’things’. How DOIs relate to PIDs for people (ORCID iDs) and places (ROR IDs), why genuine persistence requires active governance, and why fake DOI organisations make specifying registration via DOI Foundation Registration Agencies vital.
Crossref DOIs: a distinct implementation. The DOI is a general-purpose identifier system, not a scholarly infrastructure in itself; what makes a Crossref DOI useful is the open metadata, relationships, services, and stewardship built on top of it.
The DOI landscape: fragmentation and policy implications. There is no central DOI metadata store: records registered with one Registration Agency cannot be found through another’s systems, so policies should specify the metadata and services required, not just the identifier type.
Beyond identification: metadata, services, and the Research Nexus. What open, relational metadata enables for research assessment, open research, discovery, and research integrity; including the Grant Linking System, which connects funding to outputs across institutions, disciplines, and borders.
Governance and sustainability: the trust layer. Using the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI) and other best-practice frameworks for evaluation: community governance, financial resilience, and binding commitments to the communities served—and why digital sovereignty is safeguarded by design, so that participation never becomes lock-in.
Recommendations for policymakers and implementers. Five specific recommendations for national PID strategies, listed below.
PID policies in practice. Worked examples from the UK, Portugal, Canada, and South Africa: policies that specify needs and outcomes rather than prescribing systems.

The five recommendations for policymakers

Frame the goal. Focus strategies on open research infrastructure and open metadata: what problems are identifier systems solving, and is the surrounding infrastructure fit for that purpose?
Be specific. Set out the technical, operational, and governance requirements, so that implementation—including the choice of DOI Registration Agency—is evidence-based and delivers the intended outcomes.
Require more than PID registration. Selected identifier systems should include open, machine-readable metadata, connect across the research landscape, and be maintained over time to provide confidence in each record’s reach and persistence.
Evaluate sustainability and governance. Use POSI and other best-practice frameworks to assess community governance, financial resilience, and commitment to long-term data availability.
Build on existing open infrastructure. Where robust, community-governed infrastructure already exists, a shared solution maximises reach and community investment; if local systems are required, factor in the cost of integration and the years needed for wide adoption.

Read the full Position Paper

Loading…

We welcome dialogue with policymakers, funders, national bodies, and others developing open research infrastructure adoption strategies: start a discussion on our community forum or contact our community team.

Why PID strategies need more than PIDs: our first position paper

Kornelia Korzec — Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

PID strategies are being written around the world right now, and the decisions being made will shape the scholarly record for decades. After 25 years running open scholarly infrastructure—now on behalf of 25,000 members in 167 countries—Crossref has an informed perspective on what those decisions should ideally rest on. Today we’re setting it out in our’s first position paper: Persistent identifiers in research infrastructure policy: the need for a holistic approach. You can read it online or download the PDF; it’s a 16-minute read.

Why now? The world looks very different from when Crossref was set up, and what we steward now reaches well beyond our membership: open metadata flows into national assessment systems, discovery services, integrity tools, and the AI systems learning from the scholarly record. Increasingly, decisions about research infrastructure are made by people who have never registered a record with us. Setting out our positions in public on key issues—to be referenced for years to come—seems a useful way to take that wider responsibility seriously.

The central argument of this paper is that decisions about PIDs are often framed as a choice of identifier, whereas what is really being chosen is infrastructure. Identifiers alone—however well-designed—cannot deliver the connected, open record that researchers, institutions, funders, publishers, and policymakers depend on. Effective research infrastructure rests on three interdependent elements: open, persistent identifiers; rich, open, and linked metadata; and the sustainable governance and operation of the organisations involved.

We urge those developing PID strategies and open science policies to evaluate all three together, looking beyond the identifier itself to the metadata, services, interoperability, and long-term sustainability that provide the real-world value they seek.

One thing the paper is clear about: not all DOIs are equivalent, and there is no centralised DOI metadata store—meaning a policy that specifies ‘use DOIs’ without accompanying requirements for metadata, services, and governance, can leave important questions open. We therefore recommend that policies spell out the real-world outcomes needed, not just the identifier type.

The paper is also explicit about what persistence actually takes. Real persistence is active: a social contract in which members take on the long-term stewardship of their own records. And it has to be paid for; infrastructure serving the record in perpetuity should demonstrate financial resilience. The paper shows how Crossref delivers both: our members actively maintain their records, and our membership model has kept us financially resilient for the long term while also paying it forward and supporting others.

The paper also addresses digital sovereignty, a live concern in many national strategies. Our answer is that sovereignty is safeguarded by design, not just by trust. National institutions are not customers of this infrastructure; they are members and governors of it, they remain the authoritative source of their own metadata, and their investment strengthens the shared record rather than fragmenting it.

Who is this paper for?

Policy strategists get the macro view: why identifiers, metadata, and governance need to be evaluated together, and how infrastructure choices shape the long-term success of a research strategy.

Decision-makers get criteria to require before a decision is made: how to evaluate PID infrastructure as a whole, including interoperability, sustainability, and governance.

Practitioners get a view of what good implementation looks like before committing: practical requirements for the metadata and services that make an identifier system useful in daily operation.

Key positions

PIDs are a means to an end. The value of an identifier system lies in the richness of its associated metadata, the scalability of the services it enables, and the needs it meets for the communities it serves.
PIDs can be complementary rather than competitive. Research uses many identifier types; they coexist productively, each serving the community and use case for which they were designed.
Not all DOIs are equivalent. Different DOI Registration Agencies offer fundamentally different services, metadata, and governance. Concrete requirements and expected outcomes for each entity being identified—not just identifier type—are therefore essential in any policy or implementation.
Interoperability is critical. Implementing identifier systems without evaluating their interoperability undermines the goal of a connected research record. National strategies must ensure that proposed PID infrastructure connects to the broader global research ecosystem.
Sustainability and governance matter as much as technical standards. Community governance and demonstrated financial resilience should be taken into account in any assessment of infrastructure organisations.
Open infrastructure—not PID adoption alone—is the foundation of a connected, open research record. Strategies should measure success based on the openness, connectivity, and reach of the surrounding infrastructure and its services.

Join the conversation

The paper includes worked examples from the UK, Portugal, Canada, and South Africa—policies that specify needs and outcomes rather than prescribing identifier systems, which is what we think good PID strategy looks like in practice. If you’re developing or reviewing research infrastructure policy and want to talk it through, we’d welcome that. Start a discussion on our community forum, or email us via feedback@crossref.org anytime. This paper is also the newest addition to our publications area, which gathers 25 years of Crossref reports, guides, and perspectives in one place.

Cite the paper as: Crossref (2026). Persistent identifiers in research infrastructure policy: the need for a holistic approach. Crossref Position Paper. https://doi-org.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/10.13003/q4vu-l2mw