8 ms·

This seems more like a versioning issue. Can't papers that pass review get a new DOI? I'm thinking something like semver for scientific papers or scientific dat

This seems more like a versioning issue. Can't papers that pass review get a new DOI? I'm thinking something like semver for scientific papers or scientific data, more generally. DOIs even look like semver versions, so why not add more space for the different stages of publishing?

philipkglass 9y ago
I'm talking about papers like this: http://sci-hub.cc/10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b06335 http://sci-hub.cc/10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b06335 It's already passed peer review, but the final version will be tidied up with additional editing and will have e.g. the line-by-line numbering stripped out. I see sci-hub versions of papers from months ago, or older, that never update to the final edition. The content doesn't differ much but the final version may have better-placed figures, corrected typos, and other minor improvements.
- aw3c2 9y ago
  If different versions of a paper have different DOI then the DOI is broken and should be replaced by something better. I consider it a heresy that some sites (fuck ResearchGate, Academia.edu) consider it fine to alter the PDFs. Document integrity should be the holy grail. Files should be final and never get touched. If they are, they are different.
  - matthewmacleod 9y ago
    Wait, aren't those two statements opposed to each other? Different versions of a paper should have different DOIs. A DOI is fundamentally quite abstract, and there is no reason that an object-appropriate versioning scheme can't be laid on top. Figshare, for example, uses a versioning system where there is a single DOI referring to the overall artefact (e.g. 10.6084/m9.figshare.2066037) and a versioned-by-suffix DOI referring to a specific version (e.g. 10.6084/m9.figshare.2066037.v16). That works really well IMO.
    - poppingtonic 9y ago
      ArXiv itself does this. See the 'cite as' section of this one: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08475 https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08475, which has the note arXiv:1707.08475 [stat.ML] (or arXiv:1707.08475v1 [stat.ML] for this version)
    - aw3c2 9y ago
      Oops, yes of course. That's what I meant. Typo. :)
- rvern 9y ago
  The publisher is using DOIs incorrectly.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

philipkglass 9y ago

I'm talking about papers like this: http://sci-hub.cc/10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b06335 http://sci-hub.cc/10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b06335 It's already passed peer review, but the final version will be tidied up with additional editing and will have e.g. the line-by-line numbering stripped out. I see sci-hub versions of papers from months ago, or older, that never update to the final edition. The content doesn't differ much but the final version may have better-placed figures, corrected typos, and other minor improvements.

aw3c2 9y ago
If different versions of a paper have different DOI then the DOI is broken and should be replaced by something better. I consider it a heresy that some sites (fuck ResearchGate, Academia.edu) consider it fine to alter the PDFs. Document integrity should be the holy grail. Files should be final and never get touched. If they are, they are different.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  Wait, aren't those two statements opposed to each other? Different versions of a paper should have different DOIs. A DOI is fundamentally quite abstract, and there is no reason that an object-appropriate versioning scheme can't be laid on top. Figshare, for example, uses a versioning system where there is a single DOI referring to the overall artefact (e.g. 10.6084/m9.figshare.2066037) and a versioned-by-suffix DOI referring to a specific version (e.g. 10.6084/m9.figshare.2066037.v16). That works really well IMO.
  - poppingtonic 9y ago
    ArXiv itself does this. See the 'cite as' section of this one: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08475 https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08475, which has the note arXiv:1707.08475 [stat.ML] (or arXiv:1707.08475v1 [stat.ML] for this version)
  - aw3c2 9y ago
    Oops, yes of course. That's what I meant. Typo. :)
rvern 9y ago
The publisher is using DOIs incorrectly.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]