@researchremix @danielskatz @CrossrefOrg @datacite I have long argued that it is weird that so many elements of a reference are related to locating content in a physical form that no longer matters much (e.g. vol, issue, pages). Identifiers can do the job here. BUT…

@researchremix @danielskatz @CrossrefOrg @datacite In a citation, the metadata is doing a few things. So yes, journal name is helpful for matching. But the metadata isn’t just about locating the item referenced.

@researchremix @danielskatz @CrossrefOrg @datacite The metadata also is designed to serve the reader who is familiar with the literature and who is likely to already be familiar with the item referenced.

@researchremix @danielskatz @CrossrefOrg @datacite In this case it is useful if the metadata gives enough information to allow the reader to *not* have to lookup the reference. In this case I think journal name is helpful and is not just advertising prestige.

@researchremix @danielskatz @CrossrefOrg @datacite Josiah Carberry might have published 10 things in 2015. But only 1 of them was in PLOS Psychoceramics. So having the journal name helps me, the reader, avoid having to follow the reference if I am already familiar with Carberry’s oeuvre.