Thanks!

I still think that Publisher should be a higher priority as Source. They also take the DOI into account, but use the publisher-specific API to get the fulltext url. Thus, they are more reliable than just following the DOI and then trying to guess the PDF path from the webpage.

• Publisher can only be higher ranked than source if it ALWAYS searches via DOI and does not return close/related results or even searches based on strings.
• We might switch priority then but should rename SOURCE to e.g. DOI then
• Another "problem" is that the downloads might take longer than before as they Publisher fetcher s are generally not that fast compared to the direct DOI forwarding

Ok, so we have: Publisher_Identifier (use doi or other identifier, uses publisher API), Identifier (general identifier-based), Publisher (not identifier-based), preprint, other

I'm not sure if the distinction between publisher with and without identifier is really necessary, but that should make it clear also in the future.

The issue is about full-text fetchers.

The issue was that one fetcher implementeation fetches the complete proceedings and the other fetcher fetches the concrete paper. A DOI points to the paper; the publisher fetcher fetches the complete proceedings. This is unintended.

I will try to pair-up with @stefan-kolb

We fixed a similarity problem inside the DoiResolution that REALLY caused this issue.