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.

8
  • 30
    (I'm on the mathematics advisory board for the arXiv, so I'm quite interested in this question, and very happy to consider other positions. It's certainly something we could think about doing, if it made sense.) Commented Jan 30, 2016 at 5:52
  • 2
    'Avoid duplication' is a key point. The DOI wasn't intended to be a unique identifier, but it inevitably gets used as one, and duplicate assignment complicates things. Commented Jan 30, 2016 at 11:16
  • 12
    @Andrew But the Object represented by the Digital Object Identifier, i.e. the published paper, is not the same Object represented by the arXiv identifier, i.e. the preprint. So "a paper" (really, a preprint and a published paper) having two distinct identifiers is not duplication, it's correct bookkeeping.
    – user9646
    Commented Jan 30, 2016 at 15:38
  • 4
    @NajibIdrissi this is indeed correct, but if we provide two DOIs people will probably find it tricky to maintain that distinction. Having a separate type of identifier avoids a bit of the confusion. Commented Jan 30, 2016 at 16:36
  • 10
    To the extent that the preprint and the published paper have distinct identities, remember they already have distinct, globally unique identifiers (an arxiv id and a DOI). Commented Jan 30, 2016 at 21:32