←back to thread

110 points PaulHoule | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.199s | source
Show context
vlovich123 ◴[] No.43552408[source]
Can’t believe they don’t link to the actual paper: https://academic.oup.com/pasj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/pa...
replies(4): >>43552416 #>>43554666 #>>43555062 #>>43557884 #
Kye ◴[] No.43552416[source]
>> More information: Shimpei Nishimoto et al, Infrared Bubble Recognition in the Milky Way and Beyond Using Deep Learning, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan (2025). DOI: 10.1093/pasj/psaf008

It links to a doi.org URL which directs the browser to what you linked.

replies(1): >>43552629 #
shagie ◴[] No.43552629[source]
And has the value of "it doesn't go dead as easily" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier

> The DOI for a document remains fixed over the lifetime of the document, whereas its location and other metadata may change. Referring to an online document by its DOI should provide a more stable link than directly using its URL. But if its URL changes, the publisher must update the metadata for the DOI to maintain the link to the URL. It is the publisher's responsibility to update the DOI database. If they fail to do so, the DOI resolves to a dead link, leaving the DOI useless.

More about it at Digital Object Identifier (DOI) Under the Context of Research Data Librarianship - https://doi.org/10.7191%2Fjeslib.2021.1180

replies(2): >>43553073 #>>43553842 #
jgord ◴[] No.43553073[source]
I thought thats why we had urls not only IP addresses ..

which reminds me, who has control over DOI.org ... eg. is it DOGE-safe ? likewise arXiv .. can it easily be co-opted / subsumed ?

replies(2): >>43553199 #>>43557936 #
sebmellen ◴[] No.43553199[source]
I’ve met the folks behind DOI. Very nice people (Jonathan Clark in particular).

It’s an independent foundation and they have backups/contingency plans established with major universities to preserve the DOI records in the event the foundation fails.

https://www.doi.org/the-foundation/board-and-governance/

replies(2): >>43553919 #>>43554184 #
j-pb ◴[] No.43554184[source]
Their whole organisation should have been a hash function...

DOI must die

replies(1): >>43555647 #
PaulHoule ◴[] No.43555647[source]
Should be done with Web3.
replies(1): >>43557494 #
j-pb ◴[] No.43557494[source]
Scientific publishing is one of the very few legit use cases for block-chains imo.

But magnet links and the BitTorrent mainline hash-table are a better DOI than DOI.

replies(1): >>43557928 #
sebmellen ◴[] No.43557928[source]
DOIs exist so they can be human readable and simultaneously indicate the source and veracity of it. They’re somewhat gated as well which serves a function.
replies(2): >>43557993 #>>43558297 #
1. __MatrixMan__ ◴[] No.43557993[source]
Are they human readable? As for veracity, wouldn't baking a digital signature into the paper itself be far more reliable?

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they exist, but they appear to guard against humans who are lazy and make mistakes sometimes rather than against a powerful adversary motivated to interfere with science. It might be time for an upgrade.