[Taxacom] In defense of DOIs
agosti at amnh.org
Mon Feb 15 05:56:12 CST 2010
I second Rod. We need DOI, we need the Cross Ref for biodiversity.
And we need to end to make us extract manually this information for the
17,000+ new taxa, plus about 50,000 redescriptions we produce each year.
We need to stop wasting time correcting slightly to very wrong references,
names, geographic names.
Even we will not be able to imitate Google by doing all the extraction by
machine, this has to be our goal.
The goal has to be to offer the publishers DOIs or similar for our
biodiversity heritage literature, all the names, collecting events,
morphological terms, image and gene bank entries, etc.
We need to build the respective databases as much as we need to come up with
formats including all the necessary semantic enhancements as well as the
links to external resources that are stable.
The more of the external resources are at our fingertips, the less
additional work it will be to use them. Similarly, if we have journal
production work flows that include at the author level tools to embed all
those links and enhancements, we avoid later on a great deal of waste by
extracting the information. This, I think, is saving a huge amount of
duplication and error production.
Finally, only this opens the door of the huge body of knowledge to the wider
audience and thus makes taxonomy a relevant science.
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Roderic Page
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 1:45 PM
Subject: [Taxacom] In defense of DOIs
In one of your recent posts (http://markmail.org/message/fokdb5ipl2th2b4k
) you "applaud Zootaxa for not wanting to enter into the DOI money-
go-round, which would have resulted in less new taxonomy being
published due to more time/money being wasted on pointless beauracracy
I'm as much against pointless bureaucracy as anybody, but I'm not
sure you are aware of the benefits DOIs bring to electronic
publication. DOIs underpin stable citation linking in modern journals,
and have several advantages over raw URLs.
1. Every time they changed web site technology there was a good chance
URLs to articles would change, breaking existing links. DOIs hide this
using indirection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirection ).
2. When publishers merge or are acquired (e.g., Wiley and Blackwell)
the DOIs don't change, whereas the URLs to the articles do (publishers
don't want their URLs "branded" with the names of former rivals that
they have bought out). This means users can blissfully ignore who is
publishing the content, the links "just work".
3. If the list of literature cited on an article web page use URLs,
then a publisher is effectively branding their content with URLs to
rival publishers. DOIs "hide" this, making linking much more palatable
But the real benefits come from the services provided by CrossRef
)that underlie DOIs. For example,
1. Given a DOI I can retrieve details about the publication (e.g.,
article title, journal, etc.). No more typing bibliographies. This
service has spawned a whole ecosystem of bibliographic tools such as
, http://citeulike.org, http://www.zotero.org, and http://www.mendeley.com
that make it easy to manage bibliographies online (these sites are
also generating social networks of researchers on the back of this
2. Given article metadata I can find the DOI (if it exists). This
service enables publishers to convert lists of papers cited to
actionable links. It also enables sites such as Wikipedia to
automatically convert citations into clickable links.
But there is more. Given that when a publisher registers an article
with CrossRef the publisher can submit a list of DOIs for the
publications cited by that article, CrossRef can provide "forward
linking", which means that for any article the publisher can list not
only the papers cited, but who is citing that article.
Imagine an article in Nature that cites a publication in, say,
Zootaxa. At the moment, the Nature article has no link to the Zotaxa
paper. The reader has to Google the paper. Furthermore, once they find
the Zootaxa paper, the reader has no information on who has cited that
paper. If I was a Zootaxa author, I'd love to know what papers were
citing my work.
I fully accept that DOIs add additional work load and cost to
publication, and that these are not trivial considerations. But please
don't dismiss DOIs as pointless bureaucracy. I'd argue DOIs have been
an extraordinary success, and the academic publishing landscape would
be a mess without them (or services that provided the same
Lastly, imagine if we had similar services for the other things we
care about, such as taxonomic names and specimens. Services that gave
us metadata about these things, as well as told us how they are
interrelated (e.g., this name was published in this article, this
specimen is the holotype for this name, etc.). In other words,
something like CrossRef for biology. This is why I'm in biodiversity
informatics -- I want a CrossRef for biodiversity.
Professor of Taxonomy
Graham Kerr Building
University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
Email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
Tel: +44 141 330 4778
Fax: +44 141 330 2792
AIM: rodpage1962 at aim.com
Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4866 (20100214) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
More information about the Taxacom