I know that arXiv have their own identifier system, but considering how widely adopted DOI is, why do they not use DOI perhaps as a supplement to their own identifier?
This behavior changed in January 2022. ArXiV now assigns DOIs, as well as arXiv IDs. The change was supposedly made to improve discoverability, and to "help arXiv meet the ‘FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship’".
Starting in January 2022, arXiv began registering DOIs and submitting associated article metadata to DataCite on behalf of (and at no cost to) arXiv authors. The first articles to receive DOIs are those with 2201.NNNNN identifiers, with all new articles receiving DOIs going forward. Following the successful launch, we will begin minting “arXiv DOIs” for the approximately 2M articles in arXiv’s corpus published between 1991 and 2021. The article abstract (/abs) pages are also now updated to display the arXiv DOIs following the registrations.
Why add DOIs when there are arXiv identifiers? Are arXiv identifiers going away?
The arXiv identifier has existed for more than 30 years; we will continue supporting it and you may use it in your citations as an alternative to the arXiv DOI. We are issuing DOIs for several reasons:
- Making article metadata available in DataCite’s centralized location allows research outputs to be more discoverable and harvestable.
- Some funding agencies require DOIs for the research they are supporting.
The DOI is constructed from the ID according to
An author can determine their article’s DOI by using the DOI prefix https://doi.org/10.48550/ followed by the arXiv ID (replacing the colon with a period). For example, the arXiv ID arXiv:2202.01037 will translate to the DOI link https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2202.01037
At least in mathematics, the arXiv is a pre-print server --- papers are mostly eventually published, and receive DOIs then. In fact, the arXiv encourages authors to add these DOIs to the arXiv metadata when they become available.
I think it could be quite confusing for papers to end up with two DOIs. Given that the arXiv numbering scheme works quite well, and in practice everyone knows how to resolve handles of the form
arXiv:NNNN.MMMMM, why add the complication?
DOIs have a technical purpose and a bolted-on social purpose.
The technical purpose for DOIs is to be an actionable identifier for intellectual works (such as articles) that outlives technology changes, domain-name changes, business-model failures, mergers and acquisitions, and all the other stuff that makes ordinary URLs 404. (Thinking of it as a URL-indirection layer is not a bad way to get your head around it.) The thing is, DOIs are not the only scheme that accomplishes this technical goal. (In fact, technically? DOIs are actually handles.) arXiv appears to have rolled its own scheme with underlying infrastructure to match.
The bolted-on social purpose? In the early days of web-accessible journals, it wasn't always obvious what was a legitimate journal and what was woolly-wild-Web content. (Not, obviously, that such things are exactly clear as crystal now! However.) Because nobody making woolly-wild-Web content bothered to buy DOIs, DOIs became a convenient heuristic for determining whether online content belonged to a journal.
In so doing, they accreted Mystical (but let me assure you, wholly imaginary) Powers of Reputability in the eyes of many people who really ought to know better... to the extent that anything without a DOI started to look fishy, including in the eyes of many people who really ought to know better.
So. Where does that leave arXiv? With an adequate technical solution to the 404 problem, but without the Mystical Powers of Reputability that DOIs are (erroneously) thought to confer. I hypothesize that arXiv doesn't think it needs to pay for Mystical Powers of Reputability... and it's flourishing, so if that is indeed what arXiv is thinking, arXiv appears to be correct.