2 ms·
For many entries (like your example), what was listed as the DOI was not actually a valid DOI, but rather some other identifier that is presumably specific to c
by jamessb 4y ago
For many entries (like your example), what was listed as the DOI was not actually a valid DOI, but rather some other identifier that is presumably specific to citeseerx.
A valid DOI includes a slash: the part before the slash indicates the registrant, and the part after it is the suffix that indicates which item managed by the registrant is actually referred to [1].
[1]: https://www.doi.org/doi_handbook/2_Numbering.html#2.2 https://www.doi.org/doi_handbook/2_Numbering.html#2.2
- Mathnerd314 4y agoYeah, this is documented: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/187677/how-does-citeseerxs-doi-parameter-work https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/187677/how-does... I think using hashes is probably an improvement, the issue is the links are broken.
- Mathnerd314 4y agoWikipedia found a database dump from 2017 that relates the DOIs to hashes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#citeseerx_links_are_ALL_dead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#cit...