The method
- Record each document’s title, authors, identifier and address. Separate the repository’s displayed date from the document date. When a version label is absent, preserve that absence rather than assigning your own number.
- Look for the relationship explicitly stated between documents and its direction. Then compare the research question, scope and passages you intend to cite. Similar titles alone do not establish identical conclusions.
- Choose the version matching your purpose and explain that choice in the reference. Keep corrections or reservations beside the excerpt used. A new version calls for rereading decisive passages, not merely replacing an address in your notes.
Fictional worked example
In a fictional example, two files have the same title while a third adds a dataset. The notebook describes all three documents and their available links. You can cite the version actually read without claiming that the others contain the same analysis or received the same review.
The record to keep
Keep one row per version, its identifiers and the cited passages. Record your reading date to recover the exact context of your synthesis.
Your record, step by step
For your own situation, record the following information. Check a field when it is documented; missing information still needs verification. The boxes are a reminder within this page.
This checklist does not validate your project. No entries are sent or saved.
Completed fictional example: these values only explain the method. Adapt the rows to your circumstances and keep unknowns explicit.
| Element | Value or observation | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Version 1 | Table: 80 observations | Keep the value with this version |
| Version 2 | Table: 75 observations | Find the explanation for the difference |
| Citation | Text still cites 80 | Correct it or specify that the citation concerns version 1 |
What this method can establish
Connecting versions establishes neither study quality nor a particular review process. A missing metadata link does not prove that no relationship exists.
Read the direction of a publication relationship
Crossref relationships have a direction: described and linked objects play different roles. Read the relationship before replacing a reference.
- Identify the described object
- Read the relationship
- Compare the cited passage
| Situation | What changes | Useful check |
|---|---|---|
| isPreprintOf / hasPreprint | Links a preprint and associated publication in opposite directions. | Check which document was actually read. |
| isVersionOf / hasVersion | Declares a version relationship. | Compare tables and conclusions; the link does not mean identical text. |
| isReviewOf / hasReview | Links a review and its subject. | Read the review and its scope before concluding. |
A working DOI identifies a resource without awarding a quality label. A missing metadata relationship does not establish that works are unrelated. Retain the title, version and passage used.
Documentation : Crossref — Relationships ↗ · · Read the reference record →
Supporting documentation
These references support the method. Each source shows its language and consultation date; an available directory record explains its purpose.
- Crossref — Relationships EN ↗
Documentation consulted on · Resource record : Crossref
An editorial method, a fictional example and references for further reading.