Sci-Hub’s cache of pirated papers is so big, subscription journals are doomed

Re:Sci-Hub’s cache of pirated papers is so big, subscription... by aw3c2 on Thursday July 27, 2017 @05:06PM (#14869533)

If different versions of a paper have different DOI then the DOI is broken and should be replaced by something better.

I consider it a heresy that some sites (fuck ResearchGate, Academia.edu) consider it fine to alter the PDFs. Document integrity should be the holy grail. Files should be final and never get touched. If they are, they are different.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sci-Hub’s cache of pirated papers is so big, subscription... by matthewmacleod on Thursday July 27, 2017 @06:56PM (#14870446)

Wait, aren't those two statements opposed to each other?

Different versions of a paper should have different DOIs. A DOI is fundamentally quite abstract, and there is no reason that an object-appropriate versioning scheme can't be laid on top. Figshare, for example, uses a versioning system where there is a single DOI referring to the overall artefact (e.g. 10.6084/m9.figshare.2066037) and a versioned-by-suffix DOI referring to a specific version (e.g. 10.6084/m9.figshare.2066037.v16). That works really well IMO.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sci-Hub’s cache of pirated papers is so big, subscription... by poppingtonic on Friday July 28, 2017 @08:35AM (#14873742)

ArXiv itself does this. See the 'cite as' section of this one: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08475, which has the note

arXiv:1707.08475 [stat.ML] (or arXiv:1707.08475v1 [stat.ML] for this version)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sci-Hub’s cache of pirated papers is so big, subscription... by aw3c2 on Friday July 28, 2017 @11:58AM (#14875199)

Oops, yes of course. That's what I meant. Typo. :)

[ Parent | on HN ]