Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • 10
    In my field (where arXiv is widely used) I don't think DOI's are generally perceived as granting any reputability factor (and arXiv only a minimal amount). In fact I often prefer not to include DOI's in my references because I think it makes my references more cluttered and ugly.
    – Kimball
    Commented Jan 30, 2016 at 3:41
  • 14
    @Kimball Are references there to look pretty or to enable to find the cited work as easily and quickly as possible? As a reader, being able to simply click on the DOI number and instantly get the article is very useful...
    – user9646
    Commented Feb 4, 2016 at 13:23
  • 3
    @NajibIdrissi Form and function are not entirely separate. But if links are included, one can also click on the arXiv id to go directly to the paper.
    – Kimball
    Commented Feb 4, 2016 at 13:54
  • 3
    The mystical thing is something Crossref is trying to counter, e.g. blog.crossref.org/2013/09/… . DOIs also provide another function: a cross-publisher metadata store in which you can look up information about publications regardless of who published it or where.
    – Joe
    Commented Feb 23, 2016 at 17:31
  • 4
    I would like to emphasize what D.Salo wrote: DOIs are more about intellectual property than about journal vs preprint distinction. For example, the preprint system of Open Science Framework automatically assigns a DOI to new preprints and new projects, and depositing these preprints is not subject to any review, and (luckily) not even to screening or filtering, as it is for arXiv instead.
    – pglpm
    Commented Jan 29, 2018 at 14:29