We’re providing a summary of the board’s July 2026 meeting. The July board meeting is our only in-person meeting. The board gathers for two days of strategic thinking and long-range planning, as well as conducting annual board business. This year, we focused on allocating surplus funds we have on hand to invest in a three-year project to redesign the content system. In a related discussion, we decided to lower content registration fees starting in 2027 because we’ve had a demonstrated history of generating surpluses, exceeding what we need to run Crossref. We also discussed the board structure, as part of our regular review of stakeholder governance. And we conducted annual board business, such as approving the audited financial statements and reviewed our risk register and mitigation plans.
The resolutions are available on the dedicated section of our website, which also lists the members of the Board and offers further information about our governance.
We also managed to squeeze in watching a World Cup game over dinner.
Starting today, funder names deposited in Crossref metadata without an identifier will be matched to ROR IDs, to support an open and connected Research Nexus. Funding information is an increasingly important part of the scholarly record. The improved matching strategy supports researchers, funders, institutions, and meta-researchers, who rely on that information to understand how research is supported and what outcomes that support produces.
Strengthening Scholarly Publishing in Africa is a collaborative webinar series bringing together ASSAf, Crossref, DOAJ, EIFL, and PKP to share practical guidance, resources, and approaches for strengthening the publishing ecosystem in the region. This series responds to the growing interest in open access, digital publishing, stronger editorial practices, and greater visibility of research publishing across Africa. Each partner organisation has long experience of building that capacity in the area of their expertise. In this series, we’re coming together to offer a more holistic learning experience to the community of African publishers, putting different aspects of the publishing process in their broader context.
We’ve had a year full of growth and reached a milestone of 60+ team members; let’s take a moment to digest what that means for people operations. Hiring staff in 19+ countries is no easy task, but we are up for it, and I can honestly say it is the main reason why our culture is so great. That might sound biased coming from Crossref’s first Head of Human Resources, but hear me out.
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.
Crossref (2026). Persistent identifiers in research infrastructure policy: the need for a holistic approach. Crossref Position Paper. https://doi.org/10.13003/q4vu-l2mw
