We are putting out a publication that will be in both English and Portuguese. There will be 2 separate PDFs (one for each language) but they will share a publication landing page, so each translation will have the same URL. Should each have a separate DOI registered? Or should the English version and the Portuguese version share a single DOI since they will both be accessible for download on the same publication landing page?
Not sure if this matters, but we use the web deposit form to register all of our DOIs.
Hi @esuarez! Thanks for your question, and welcome to the community forum!
When a single journal article is published in two languages, each should be assigned its own DOI. In the example below the DOIs are published in the same journal. The original language instance has metadata that contains no indication of the translation instance. The alternative language instance includes in its metadata a relation to the original language instance. Here is a screenshot of the relevant section in the code. Please refer to the code snippet below to see it in context.
In the translation DOI’s metadata, include the element in the metadata for the article
In the translation DOI’s metadata, include an isTranslationOf relationship, pointing back to the original article’s DOI
You can find more information on Relationship types and an example of a translated article here:
A good way to remember our best practice is to note that DOIs are “citation identifiers” not “work identifiers.” That means that if two publications will be cited differently (one in English and one in Portuguese in your example), they should have distinct DOIs. And the same work would be cited differently if it’s in another language, so each language version should get its own DOI.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
I have the identical scenario. We use OJS and DOIs are generated by article. If I upload a translation to the original article, I cannot create two DOIs. Thus, we have elected to deposit the original version with its DOI and use the same for the translate version. So far, I have not found an alternative, so if there is any suggestions on this, it will be welcome.
You could register the original via OJS and then register the translation with us using our web deposit form. DOIs are citation identifiers, so if it is likely that researchers will cite the original and translated works differently, we find they do, then it is best practice to register both DOIs and link them together with the isTranslationOf relationship I mentioned above.
Dear Isaac, a fellow journal editor expressed concerns that if translations were published as first-class articles, receiving a separate DOI, this might diminish the journal-level citation density, such as CiteScore, JIF, and similar ratios of average citations per article. We can assume the number of citations does not change, it’s just split between original works and their translation. But the number of published articles would increase, potentially twofold if every article is translated. Do you think the hasTranslation/isTranslationOf fields could help prevent that problem? Or would it work alternatively if translations were considered a component of the work, in a child/parent relationship (not unlike supplementary material), perhaps still with their own DOI?
Thanks for following up. Those hasTranslation/isTranslationOf relations link the original work and their translation together in the metadata.
As I mentioned above in this thread, DOIs are citation identifiers. If it is likely that researchers will cite the original and translated works differently, and we find that they do, then it is best practice to register both DOIs and link them together with the hasTranslation/isTranslationOf relations. Using the hasTranslation/isTranslationOf relations is the best practice and should be used instead of registering a component.