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.
Research is rarely limited to a single contributor performing a single role. Behind every research output are people contributing in various ways: software development, data analyses, methodology design, and much more. Often, the same person contributes in several of these ways. Until now, Crossref metadata could only capture part of that picture, but this is changing with Schema 5.5.
Through user experience research (UXR) initiatives that take into account our diverse membership and community, we can have a continuous, deeper understanding of the role of metadata in our members’ workflows, and ensure that our work continues to meet our community’s needs. Your support is the key to this process, and will positively impact the wider community - and if you’d like to start today, you can take part in our latest initiative: help us improve our Events page by sharing your thoughts on the page’s feedback form.
Our 2026 Community Update took place on 13 May. Two calls, one for the eastern and one for the western time zone, highlighted how our global community is growing, how we’re refining the metadata that supports trust in the scholarly record, and connecting records more effectively through our latest tools.
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.
