Subscribe: Comments on iPhylo: Duplicate DOIs
http://iphylo.blogspot.com/feeds/1597102984643985566/comments/default
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
bioone  crossref system  dois don  dois  don work  much bigger  much bringing  much  page much  problem  professor page  work much  work 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on iPhylo: Duplicate DOIs

Comments on iPhylo: Duplicate DOIs





Updated: 2014-04-24T08:06:22.899+01:00

 



Thanks for following this up Kirsten. I think the ...

2007-05-11T16:07:00.000+01:00

Thanks for following this up Kirsten. I think the CrossRef system is really useful, and I'm trying to interest the biodiverisity informatics community in DOIs, so I get a bit stroppy when they break.



Professor Page, thank you very much for bringing t...

2007-05-10T21:10:00.000+01:00

Professor Page, thank you very much for bringing this issue to our attention. Our technical staff have done a bit of investigation to identify the problem.

After querying the CrossRef system, we have verified that some of the identifiers that BioOne has posted with articles for this title are not currently registered DOIs, though they are labeled as such on the BioOne web site. BioOne may have plans to register the DOIs for these other titles at a later date. In this case, an attempt to register a DOI for an already registered title would initiate a conflict report to JSTOR. In that situation, we would work with the publisher to determine the appropriate primary version of the article.

In the meantime, we will pursue this issue with the Crossref Technical Working Group, and will encourage correction of this problem on the BioOne site. Please feel free to contact me at any time if you have further questions.

Kristen Garlock
JSTOR User Services
support@jstor.org



Well, yes, DOIs are meant to be persistent. Howeve...

2007-05-08T18:33:00.000+01:00

Well, yes, DOIs are meant to be persistent. However, technology alone can't guarantee this. What seems to happen is that somebody, somewhere, screws up. Some providers seem more prone to this than others. BioOne and InformaWorld seem particulary bad, in my experience.



DOIs that don't work seem to me a much bigger prob...

2007-05-08T18:22:00.000+01:00

DOIs that don't work seem to me a much bigger problem than DOIs that refer to different copies of the same paper. Because I thought the whole point of DOIs was that they were supposed to work more reliably and permanently than URLs.