On 20 July 2026, Crossref published its first position paper, titled “Persistent identifiers in research infrastructure policy: the need for a holistic approach” (DOI: 10.13003/q4vu-l2mw). Crossref frames this as a new format for the organisation — a deliberate, citable policy statement rather than a blog post or technical note — and uses it to push back on a framing it sees repeatedly in national and international research strategies: that adopting persistent identifiers (PIDs) is itself the policy goal.
The core argument: identifiers are necessary, not sufficient
The paper’s central claim, in Crossref’s own words, is that “identifiers alone—however well-designed—cannot deliver the connected, open record that research depends on.” Crossref argues that effective research infrastructure rests on three interdependent elements, and that policy which addresses only the first of these is incomplete:
- Open, persistent identifiers — the PIDs themselves (DOIs, ORCID iDs, ROR IDs, RAiDs, and others).
- Rich, open, and linked metadata — the connective record that makes an identifier useful beyond simply resolving to a landing page.
- Sustainable governance and operation — the organisations and community commitments that keep the identifier and its metadata maintained over decades, not years.
Crossref’s framing is that national and international PID strategies are “multiplying,” and that the decisions being made now will shape the scholarly record for decades. Its argument is that those decisions are usually framed as a choice of identifier scheme, when what is actually being chosen is infrastructure — the metadata, services, governance and community commitment that sustain the record over time. Crossref explicitly addresses the sovereignty concern that motivates many national PID strategies, arguing that choosing shared, open infrastructure does not mean lock-in, because openly licensed metadata and community governance safeguard sovereignty by design.
Five recommendations for policymakers
The paper sets out five specific recommendations for policymakers designing or revising PID strategy:
- Frame strategies around open research infrastructure and metadata, not identifiers in isolation.
- Establish clear technical, operational, and governance requirements for any infrastructure a policy relies on.
- Require more than basic PID registration — demand open metadata and cross-landscape connectivity as a condition of adoption.
- Evaluate sustainability and governance against established frameworks, naming the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI) specifically.
- Leverage existing community-governed infrastructure rather than building parallel, bespoke systems, to maximise reach and interoperability.
To ground the argument, Crossref works through examples drawn from the UK, Portugal, Canada, and South Africa — illustrating how national PID strategy decisions in practice involve exactly the metadata, governance, and interoperability trade-offs the paper describes, not just a choice between identifier schemes.
Why Crossref is publishing this now, as a position paper
Crossref’s own framing situates the paper against its 25-year history operating open scholarly infrastructure on behalf of its member organisations across many countries, positioning it as an informed party in a live policy debate rather than a neutral bystander. The choice of a citable, DOI-registered “position paper” format — instead of a blog post — signals that Crossref intends this to be referenced directly in policy discussions, submissions, and subsequent research, in the same way a standards body or funder would cite a formal policy statement.
The timing lines up with a period of genuinely active national PID strategy-setting: Canada’s Digital Research Alliance and the Canadian Research Knowledge Network published a national persistent identifiers strategy in 2026, and separate CASRAI coverage has tracked EOSC federation governance changes, ORCID’s interoperability MOU with China’s CSTR platform, and the broader adoption trajectory of RAiD as a project-level identifier. Crossref’s position paper reads as a direct intervention into that same wave of policy activity, rather than a general statement issued in isolation.
Why this matters for research administrators and CRIS managers
CASRAI’s audience — research administrators, CRIS managers, and the teams who configure institutional systems around ORCID, ROR, DOI, and RAiD — sits precisely at the point where this argument becomes operational rather than abstract. A national or funder policy that mandates “use a PID” without specifying metadata requirements, update obligations, or governance expectations pushes ambiguity straight down to the institutional level: it becomes the CRIS team’s problem to work out which metadata fields actually need to be populated, kept current, and exposed for interoperability, often without clear guidance from the policy itself.
Crossref’s recommendation to evaluate infrastructure against frameworks like POSI gives institutions a concrete checklist to apply when a funder or national body proposes a new identifier requirement: is the underlying metadata open and reusable, or just resolvable? Is governance community-led, or dependent on a single vendor or agency with no transition plan? These are exactly the questions a CRIS manager needs answered before committing institutional workflows and reporting pipelines to a given identifier scheme, and Crossref’s paper gives that evaluation a citable, structured reference point rather than leaving it to ad hoc institutional judgment.
Frequently asked questions
Is this Crossref’s first position paper?
Yes — Crossref’s own announcement explicitly describes it as the organisation’s first position paper, marking a new, citable policy-statement format distinct from its usual blog posts and technical documentation.
What is Crossref arguing, in one sentence?
That PID policy should be evaluated holistically — identifiers, open linked metadata, and sustainable governance together — rather than treating adoption of an identifier scheme alone as the policy goal.
Does the paper name specific countries?
Yes. Crossref uses worked examples from the UK, Portugal, Canada, and South Africa to illustrate how national PID strategy choices in practice involve metadata and governance trade-offs, not just a choice of identifier.
What framework does Crossref point to for evaluating infrastructure governance?
The Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI), which Crossref recommends policymakers and institutions use to assess the sustainability and governance of PID-related infrastructure before relying on it.
Where can I read the full paper?
Directly from Crossref at crossref.org/publications/pids-in-research-infrastructure-policy, or via its DOI, 10.13003/q4vu-l2mw.
Source: Crossref, “Persistent identifiers in research infrastructure policy: the need for a holistic approach,” published 20 July 2026, DOI 10.13003/q4vu-l2mw. Claims in this article are drawn from Crossref’s own abstract, position paper page, and Crossref API metadata record for the DOI.
