----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bowlds" <Lbowlds@geosociety.org>
To: <geonet@purdue.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 2:21 PM
Subject: FW: [geonet] another vies on AGU's position on DOI
: I believe it's fair to say that people who work in online publishing
: consider the DOI to be a unique and powerful tool. But what is its intended
: purpose? DOI identifiers can be assigned to every online document and,
: potentially, to every version of every online document. Therefore, every
: online document can be identified and distinguished from every other online
: document.
:
: Such identifiers are certainly valuable to online data managers who must
: contend with vast quantities of information. From my perspective, the
: movement of data to the online environment looks like the beginning of an
: avalanche. Having a tool to manage this flow is essential -- hence, the DOI.
:
: However, technical information does not exist for its own sake. It is
: created by authors and used by readers. What does the DOI do for these
: people? One way to answer this question is to look at a typical, newly
: accepted manuscript being prepared for publication (i.e., a manuscript that
: has not yet been copyedited). The text is followed by a list of references,
: each with the journal name (spelled out in full at GSA) and clearly
: indicating volume number and page numbers. If I understand AGU's position
: correctly, what they propose is that authors who cite AGU papers would
: prepare references that would follow each manuscript title with the DOI
: identifier. This may sound good in theory, but in practice it wouldn't work
: because it wouldn't allow for ordinary human error.
:
: I've been a copyeditor of technical writing for 15 years, at GSA and
: elsewhere. One thing that I can say with confidence about almost all authors
: is that they don't maintain accurate records of the references they use. The
: references are almost always one of the most heavily copyedited parts of a
: paper. How in the world can we expect the author to know publisher
: identifier numbers, proper publication abbrevations (GSA spells all such
: names out in full), or publication numbers that don't relate logically to
: anything else? If this information isn't accurate, how will the reader
: locate a reference? If I go down to the local university library today, pick
: up a journal, and read an article, I can find with relatively ease any of
: the references cited by that article, even if a reference has a misspelled
: journal title or some other minor errors. But what will I do with a DOI that
: is incorrect? (Note: GSA uses DOI identifiers, but they are not currently
: visible to one of our online journal users, who see references in
: traditional form and active web links.)
:
: To put this another way (in a hypothetical example), if someone TELLS me
: that there is a great article by Jones in the Journal of Volcanology, v.
: 100, that I must read, I can take that information in my head to the library
: and find the article. The elements of the reference are in a form that I can
: understand and retain mentally. If we all switch to the DOI-only model, no
: one could TELL me about the Journal of Volcanology article, because I would
: have to write down the DOI identifier to have any hope of having an accurate
: number when I go to the library. People cannot remember long strings of
: letters and numbers without help. The result will make the references far
: less useful and more prone to error.
:
: Much (or most) of the world will not have access to the kind of technology
: that utilizes the technology associated with the DOI within the forseeable
: future. There is a very real possibility that such technology will erect
: another wall between the haves and have-nots. I'm not saying this is right
: or wrong -- just something to think about.
:
: Finally -- page numbers. If, in the future, the length of an article is no
: longer relevant to the cost of obtaining it (as it is today in so many
: cases), there remains one serious problem: the LENGTH of manuscripts is
: intrinsically important. Can anyone say it is not important to know that one
: paper is 2 pages long, and another 125? To say that page numbers cannot be
: used is not true. GSA plans to continue to mark pages online for the
: forseeable future. We intend that the online numbered pages match the paper
: numbered pages (generally, this is possible in a PDF to within a word or
: two). Page numbers provide an important part of a reader's navigation
: through the paper. If page numbers are going to be jettisoned, something
: should be put in their place.
:
: The foregoing is my personal opinion and does not represent the official
: position of GSA.
: Larry Bowlds
: Senior Managing Editor, Bulletin
: Geological Society of America
:
: -----Original Message-----
: From: Judy Holoviak [mailto:JHoloviak@agu.org]
: Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 7:12 AM
: To: iamslic; Geonet; asli@wwww.lib.noaa.gov
: Subject: [geonet] another vies on AGU's position on DOI
:
:
: The following appeared on a listserve of the Science and
: Technology Section of the Association of College and Research
: Libraries. Michael Fosmire has given me permission to post it to
: other lists.
:
: The AGU Publications Committee has carefully considered the
: points raised and the chair is in the process of preparing a
: response.
:
: Judy Holoviak
: Deputy Executive Director and
: Director of Publications
: AGU
:
: >
: > Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 19:04:22 -0500 (US Eastern Standard Time)
: > From: Michael Fosmire <fosmire@purdue.edu>
: >
: > There are many issues on which AGU and I disagree on their ejournal
: > implementation. However, using DOI's is not one of them. One publisher
: > that has implemented the DOI in a format similar to AGU is the American
: > Physical Society--which has consistently been a leader in the development
: > of electronic publishing.
: >
: > The DOI does have a logical format, and once you see it, it shouldn't
: > be horribly difficult to reproduce. For example, APS has this as a sample
: > DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.65.041001. The first number is the publisher
: > identifier, the second is the journal title, the third is the volume
: > number, and the last one is, first the issue number, then the article
: > number. It isn't much different than a volume, page number citation style
: > once you break it down. AGU's DOI doesn't look much different, with their
: > publisher number, a year-indicator, a two-letter journal abbreviation, and
: > then an article number. It doesn't seem that misquoting an article number
: > is that much more difficult than misquoting some page numbers (certainly
: > that's the biggest error I see in citation checking)--and with the DOI the
: > publisher can automatically check for those errors more easily than with a
: > non-DOI citation. Physicists have been citing arXive preprints
: > for several years without too much trouble, and I think authors are
: > flexible enough to adapt to new citation styles.
: >
: > AGU is actually ahead of the curve in this respect, and I imagine other
: > publishers will follow suit in the coming years. You have to think in the
: > new paradigm of an e-first document. Animations and data sets have no
: > reality as a page number. Furthermore, since web publishing allows the
: > end user some flexibility in how they recieve the data, page length can
: > differ from one user to another...not to mention different formats (for
: > example, HMTL vs. PDF versions of an article can yield different article
: > lengths). What is meant by a page number thus becomes increasingly
: > meaningless.
: >
: > Also, I see a change in how citations are being done. With a DOI you
: > can drag and drop citations from the source paper into the paper you are
: > writing, so errors don't accrue since there is no manual transcription of
: > citation data. Publishers also can more easily link a DOI than a citation
: > based on the paper page numbers--faster, more automated link creation, so
: > we can surf from the paper to its references (and indeed to future
: > articles that cite the paper). Instead of having the editors or a
: > computer program try and translate a paper number-based citation into its
: > DOI equivalent, it would certainly be easier if the DOI was given to begin
: > with.
: >
: > As librarians complain that publishers keep raising prices, we should be
: > applauding those publishers that are attempting to streamline the editing
: > process--the dollars saved are those that don't come out of our pockets.
: > Faster, cheaper, increased functionality comes without that much added
: > cognitive overhead for the authors.
: >
: > Rather than excoriate AGU for moving to the DOI, they should be
: > applauded for their foresight and willingness to follow the trail broken
: > by APS (in 1999 or thereabouts as near as I can remember). There will be
: > some growing pains as we transition to a new citation style (and authors,
: > indexers, and librarians will feel it), but, once it does become the
: > dominant citation pattern, the old page number citation will seem as
: > strange as the DOI does now.
: >
: > Anyway, just some opinions on the matter.
: >
: > -M.
: >
: > Michael Fosmire
: > Science Librarian
: > 1530 Physics Building
: > Purdue University
: > West Lafayette, IN 47907-1530
: > Phone: 765-494-2859
: > Fax: 765-494-0706
: > fosmire@purdue.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 09 2002 - 14:38:37 PDT