OJS says DOI has been manually registered

Software Support
1

I have uploaded this issue of AmS-Skrifter: https://journals.uis.no/index.php/AmS-Skrifter/issue/view/71

Here about half of the DOIs are working, and the other half is not working. For the ones that are not working, I get this message in OJS: “This item has been manually registered with a registration agency.” I have experienced this before, it seems to be a known issue. Is there any solution?

We are currently using OJS 3.4.0.8.

2

Hi @JohnDavid,

What registration agency are you using? I see that same error message reported here with DataCite: DOIs are not registered in OJS with Datacite - #9 by heike_riegler

But that issue may be distinct from the one you are experiencing.

-Roger
PKP Team

4

Hello @rcgillis

We are using Crossref.

5

HI @JohnDavid,

Thanks for sharing. When you note that you encountered this issue before, am I correct in assuming that it is related to this issue ? Is this a similar situation where Crossref may have to intervene? @IFarley - might you be able to speak to this?

-Roger
PKP Team

6

Thank you @JohnDavid and @rcgillis .

I can see that we have received submissions to Crossref for those DOIs that have been successfully registered, like this one: https://doi.org/10.31265/9w8p0q36

But, we have received no submissions into our system for the DOIs that are not registered, like this one: https://doi.org/10.31265/t3pv7d86

I don’t see anything on the Crossref side of this that would be causing this discrepancy. I don’t remember that we previously intervened when this error was previously reported. I am going to ask the rest of my team about this, and I’ll get back to both of you.

-Isaac

1 Like
7

It’s really a similar issue, that’s correct.

Like @IFarley says, it seems that the DOIs don’t reach into the Crossref system, for some reason I can’t see.

1 Like
8

Hi @JohnDavid and @rcgillis . I’ve asked around here at Crossref with some of our super OJS users and, unfortunately, we don’t have any answers on our side. Since the registrations aren’t making it to us, while others in the same issue are, we think the error is upstream of Crossref.

9

Hi @JohnDavid,

Could you please try selecting one of those submissions, and then using Bulk Actions > Mark as Unregistered in the DOI menu?

Since some of your DOIs have already been deposited successfully, I assume your account setup and plugin configuration are in place.

Could you also confirm whether the DOI suffix is being generated as expected? You can check this by clicking the blue arrow next to the submission in the DOI menu. If the suffix format depends on issue metadata, please make sure the required fields are enabled and also completed in the Issues menu.

1 Like
10

@mbakioglu: I have marked these DOIs as unregistered now:

https://doi.org/10.31265/32406787

https://doi.org/10.31265/vc7bk405

Do you want me to do anything else, or will you look into it?

The DOI suffix (10.31265) has been generated asexpected, and as far as I can see all issue metadata is in place for the articles. As you say yourself: It works for about half the articles, and I see no difference between those it works for and the others.

12

I also checked the article landing page, and the DOI suffixes (10.31265/32406787 and 10.31265/vc7bk405) are being generated as expected. Please re-push the registration by selecting the submissions you marked as Unregistered, go to Bulk Actions > Deposit DOIs. Please also check if you are receiving any error notifications.

1 Like
13

This kind of worked, and all DOIs are active now. Thanks a lot!

That being said: It worked quite slowly. I had to register the DOIs one by one to activate them. Bulk action didn’t work very well.

14

That’s great to hear.

Bulk actions can take some time, and please also note that it may take up to 24 hours for the DOI to be fully indexed and visible across all Crossref APIs.

1 Like