3 ms·
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 (
by 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 agoWait, 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 agoArXiv 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 agoOops, yes of course. That's what I meant. Typo. :)