Forcing Non VOR PDFs to import as type "Pre-print"

edited March 30, 2023

When Zotero imports a PDF, and the source of the pre-print is not the publisher's website, (the PDF which is the Version of Record ), how do I force Zotero to apply the pre-print type to it? That is I want PDFs which are AOMs or AMs to be listed as pre-prints or manuscripts in my zotero instance on import.

For example:

When importing the linked resource Zotero finds a version which is in an open-access repository. However this version is not the version of record, therefore it should not be given the same article type as the version of record would be... So I am assuming it is either a manuscript or a pre-print.
  • You should leave these as Journal Articles. They are identified in CrossRef or similar databases as the author manuscript equivalent to the published article (the green open access version). They are not preprints, and when citing them you should cite them using the final publication details.

    It’s not configurable in any event.
  • Thanks for pointing out that there is an upstream cross-file data link declaration. (One PDF is declared to be equivalent to another...) Which sources does Zotero rely on? and where is this in the code base?
  • It uses Unpaywall via DOI. I believe that part of the code -- which runs online -- was taken private because it was only meaningful in combination with internal Zotero services that couldn't be exposed.
  • As a point of user experience, should the user be prompted when the imported PDF is not VOR to allow the user to decide if they want to use the manuscript type or the pre-print type?
  • No, I don't think so; it's a green OA version of the published article. It's not a preprint, even if it may appear on a preprint server. Also, people getting PDFs this way start with the DOI/metadata for the VOR -- it'd be weird to offer another set of metadata instead.

    There have been some requests about a preference for not importing non-VOR PDFs at all. I'm agnostic about this, but I don't think dstillman likes that idea. The PDF title (in the middle panel) is different for different PDF status, so you can tell the difference quickly after import.
  • I am beginning to develop strong negative feelings over current behavior (in opposition to agnostic ones... ) But I do want to know that an OA version of the work is available...

    Last night I was importing a DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2463-3.ch026 from

    González Pérez, Laura Icela, María-Soledad Ramírez-Montoya, and Francisco J. García-Peñalvo. 2020. “User Experience in Institutional Repositories: A Systematic Literature Review.” In Digital Libraries and Institutional Repositories, edited by Information Resources Management Association, 423–40. IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-2463-3.ch026.

    But the PDF delivered was::

    González Pérez, Laura Icela, María-Soledad Ramírez-Montoya, and Francisco J. García-Peñalvo. 2018. “User Experience in Institutional Repositories: A Systematic Literature Review.” Edited by Information Resources Management Association. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals 9 (1): 70–86.

    from: IJHCITP 9(1) (002).pdf

    The two documents are not the same. Yes they have the same title, but the references are different one is a chapter another is a journal article. One is OA the other is not.
  • Those two items are identical.

    Here is a PDF of the book chapter: SLR.pdf?sequence=1

    Comparing the contents of the documents, they are the same. This is a case of authors republishing the same paper in multiple outlets.

    Looking at the Unpaywall data that provided the PDF, the evidence that was used to match the item with the PDF (, it indicates that the match was made based title and first author match. This appears to be an unusual edge case where the same item is republished multiple times (and indeed, the authors have deposited the journal version as the PDF for the chapter version in various places, such as ResearchGate).
Sign In or Register to comment.