News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Sci-Hub’s cache of pirated papers is so big, subscription journals are doomed. Parent comment

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 ]