Timeline for Why does arxiv.org not assign DOIs?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 24, 2022 at 0:36 | comment | added | Anyon | @meduz That's basically what they opted for: 10.48550/arXiv.NNNN.MMMMM. | |
| Feb 22, 2022 at 18:21 | comment | added | Azor Ahai -him- | in practice everyone knows how to resolve handles of the form arXiv:NNNN.MMMMM, This must be field specific, because I've never had cause to resolve a handle like that. | |
| Oct 7, 2020 at 8:13 | comment | added | meduz |
A proposal: any arxivv paper with a handle of the form arXiv:NNNN.MMMMM could be assigned an unique doi handle in the form 10.XXX/NNNN.MMMMM (could be done a posteriori + include revisions) - this would make these widely more accessible to the academic world (and in practice to current bibliography management tools ) - still they would be unique and not complicate anything (easy, unique conversion from one to the other).
|
|
| Sep 20, 2016 at 23:13 | history | edited | Kim Morrison | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo
|
| Jan 30, 2016 at 21:32 | comment | added | Kim Morrison | 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). | |
| Jan 30, 2016 at 16:36 | comment | added | Andrew is gone | @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. | |
| Jan 30, 2016 at 15:38 | comment | added | user9646 | @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. | |
| Jan 30, 2016 at 11:16 | comment | added | Andrew is gone | '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. | |
| Jan 30, 2016 at 5:52 | comment | added | Kim Morrison | (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.) | |
| Jan 30, 2016 at 5:51 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 30, 2016 at 5:56 | |||||
| Jan 30, 2016 at 5:50 | history | answered | Kim Morrison | CC BY-SA 3.0 |