[Taxacom] In defense of DOIs

Stephen Thorpe s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz
Tue Feb 16 18:45:54 CST 2010

Yes, I did mean that, Geoff. Apparently, the cross-linking can only be done semi-automatically, and requires checking by humans, which requires more staff, etc., which could be very significant for journals who try to keep costs down to a minimum but outputs at a maximum, like probably Zootaxa ...

From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Geoff Read [gread at actrix.gen.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 17 February 2010 1:35 p.m.
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] In defense of DOIs

Yes, there are those fees, but the annual fee is insignificant, and the
non-cross linking fee is a penalty fee which shouldn't apply.


The fees are openly known and not big.

When Stephen made his comment about huge expense I had assumed he meant
partly the data entry workload, probably rather burdensome for Zootaxa.


>>> On 17/02/2010 at 1:20 p.m., Stephen Thorpe <s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz>
> this contradicts other information I have from a publisher, who says that
> there is also an annual fee for the publisher, and a CrossRef
Non‑Linking Fee
> Believe it or not, there is at least one publisher, prominent in taxonomic
> publishing today, for whom both costs and profits are kept to a minimum,
> motivated, I believe, by the biodiversity crisis to maximise taxonomic
> ...
> ________________________________________
> From: taxacom‑bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[taxacom‑bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf Of Edwards, James [EDWARDSJL at si.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 February 2010 12:35 p.m.
> To: Frederick W. Schueler
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] In defense of DOIs
> Typical costs for DOIs range from US $.03 (yes, three cents!) to $20 per
> article. So they are unlikely to be the "huge expense" for a publisher that
> Stephen Thorpe fears.
> Jim Edwards
> ________________________________________
> From: taxacom‑bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[taxacom‑bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf Of Frederick W. Schueler [bckcdb at istar.ca]
> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 6:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] In defense of DOIs
> Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>> I don't deny that DOIs are "useful", and indeed I use them on Wikispecies
> whenever possible, though to me they are useful primarily as links to
> publications, rather than as identifiers per se. The question though is
> whether they are useful ENOUGH to justify the huge expense? On that I (and
> notable others, as you know from the off‑list discussion) am not
so sure. Is
> it worthwhile for a publisher to do DOIs at the expense of taxonomic
> If Zootaxa could only publish say half of its current output with the added
> workload created by DOIs, would this be worthwhile? I would have more
> confidence in  DOIs as permanent links if they were independent of
> publishers, so a DOI actually linked to a page hosted by the DOI people,
> rather than to the publishers pages, and this could best be done with open
> access articles. Why should the publishers have to pay for DOIs when
> bioinformatics people are the ones who want the DOIs most? Just like the
> issue of all these global biodiversity
> databases ‑ they are (perhaps) nice to have, but are they worth
it? Do they
> facilitate more taxonomy, or do they compete with more taxonomy?
> * for those of us outside the loop, how much does a DOI for an article
> cost? If this is large (as I gather it is), what's the explanation for
> the cost?
> fred.


Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

More information about the Taxacom mailing list