4 ms·

> I can well believe that 10 years from now there may be a rescan with higher quality. "Immutable" doesn't make sense in that context, does it? I see your poin

> I can well believe that 10 years from now there may be a rescan with higher quality. "Immutable" doesn't make sense in that context, does it? I see your point, but for future research purposes, it may be highly relevant to know that what someone cited in an influential paper 20 years ago they got from a low-quality scan. At least in the humanities, that's actually the kind of thing that some researchers care about a lot.

dalke 11y ago
Yes, the linked-to article elaborates on that: > Even when the search turns up the proper source, it might not turn up the proper edition of the source, and for scholars, that level of distinction very often matters. In order to ensure that Reader B has every possibility of seeing the same thing in a source text that Reader A saw, B needs to know whether A read the edition of a book published in 1819 or the revised edition published in 1831, or whether A read an article as originally printed in the journal or as it was repackaged for inclusion in a later edited volume. Much like the situation in a laboratory, these variables matter, and so this level of precision in their citation matters. That said, DOI does not make the "promise that the content is immutable". I'll quote the DOI FAQ at http://www.doi.org/faq.html http://www.doi.org/faq.html : > The IDF does not have any rules on this. Individual RAs adopt appropriate rules for their community and application. As a general rule, if the change is substantial and/or it is necessary to identify both the original and the changed material, assign a new DOI name. That means I was wrong. DOIs could be immutable in that way, but aren't. I made the incorrect assumption that what happened for chemistry-related fields was indicative of a general policy, which it isn't.

4 ms·

> I can well believe that 10 years from now there may be a rescan with higher quality. "Immutable" doesn't make sense in that context, does it? I see your poin

by NoGravitas 11y ago

dalke 11y ago
Yes, the linked-to article elaborates on that: > Even when the search turns up the proper source, it might not turn up the proper edition of the source, and for scholars, that level of distinction very often matters. In order to ensure that Reader B has every possibility of seeing the same thing in a source text that Reader A saw, B needs to know whether A read the edition of a book published in 1819 or the revised edition published in 1831, or whether A read an article as originally printed in the journal or as it was repackaged for inclusion in a later edited volume. Much like the situation in a laboratory, these variables matter, and so this level of precision in their citation matters. That said, DOI does not make the "promise that the content is immutable". I'll quote the DOI FAQ at http://www.doi.org/faq.html http://www.doi.org/faq.html : > The IDF does not have any rules on this. Individual RAs adopt appropriate rules for their community and application. As a general rule, if the change is substantial and/or it is necessary to identify both the original and the changed material, assign a new DOI name. That means I was wrong. DOIs could be immutable in that way, but aren't. I made the incorrect assumption that what happened for chemistry-related fields was indicative of a general policy, which it isn't.