Academia Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for academics and those enrolled in higher education. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I know that arXiv have their own identifier system, but considering how widely adopted DOI is, why do they not use DOI perhaps as a supplement to their own identifier?

share|improve this question
19  
Because DOIs cost money. – JeffE Jan 29 at 23:05
2  
How much per paper, I wonder? – Thomas Arildsen Jan 29 at 23:18
7  
Also note the arXiv (1991) began before DOI (2000). I knew about DOI's much later than arXiv ids. – Kimball Jan 29 at 23:21
2  
I also think DOI's would just complicate things (they're not clearly pointing to the arXiv, wouldn't always point to the most recent version, ...) – Kimball Jan 29 at 23:22
1  
The cost of a DOI is seemingly variable, but an open-access journal as for example the Winnower pays about 6 cent per doi. – Alexandre Vaudrey Jan 29 at 23:51

DOIs have a technical purpose and a bolted-on social purpose.

The technical purpose for DOIs is to be an actionable identifier for intellectual works (such as articles) that outlives technology changes, domain-name changes, business-model failures, mergers and acquisitions, and all the other stuff that makes ordinary URLs 404. (Thinking of it as a URL-indirection layer is not a bad way to get your head around it.) The thing is, DOIs are not the only scheme that accomplishes this technical goal. (In fact, technically? DOIs are actually handles.) arXiv appears to have rolled its own scheme with underlying infrastructure to match.

The bolted-on social purpose? In the early days of web-accessible journals, it wasn't always obvious what was a legitimate journal and what was woolly-wild-Web content. (Not, obviously, that such things are exactly clear as crystal now! However.) Because nobody making woolly-wild-Web content bothered to buy DOIs, DOIs became a convenient heuristic for determining whether online content belonged to a journal.

In so doing, they accreted Mystical (but let me assure you, wholly imaginary) Powers of Reputability in the eyes of many people who really ought to know better... to the extent that anything without a DOI started to look fishy, including in the eyes of many people who really ought to know better.

So. Where does that leave arXiv? With an adequate technical solution to the 404 problem, but without the Mystical Powers of Reputability that DOIs are (erroneously) thought to confer. I hypothesize that arXiv doesn't think it needs to pay for Mystical Powers of Reputability... and it's flourishing, so if that is indeed what arXiv is thinking, arXiv appears to be correct.

share|improve this answer
7  
In my field (where arXiv is widely used) I don't think DOI's are generally perceived as granting any reputability factor (and arXiv only a minimal amount). In fact I often prefer not to include DOI's in my references because I think it makes my references more cluttered and ugly. – Kimball Jan 30 at 3:41
    
@Kimball Are references there to look pretty or to enable to find the cited work as easily and quickly as possible? As a reader, being able to simply click on the DOI number and instantly get the article is very useful... – Najib Idrissi Feb 4 at 13:23
1  
@NajibIdrissi Form and function are not entirely separate. But if links are included, one can also click on the arXiv id to go directly to the paper. – Kimball Feb 4 at 13:54
    
The mystical thing is something Crossref is trying to counter, e.g. blog.crossref.org/2013/09/… . DOIs also provide another function: a cross-publisher metadata store in which you can look up information about publications regardless of who published it or where. – Joe Feb 23 at 17:31

At least in mathematics, the arXiv is a pre-print server --- papers are mostly eventually published, and receive DOIs then. In fact, the arXiv encourages authors to add these DOIs to the arXiv metadata when they become available.

I think it could be quite confusing for papers to end up with two DOIs. Given that the arXiv numbering scheme works quite well, and in practice every knows how to resolve handles of the form arXiv:NNNN.MMMMM, why add the complication?

share|improve this answer
5  
(I'm on the mathematics advisory board for the arXiv, so I'm quite interested in this question, and very happy to consider other positions. It's certainly something we could think about doing, if it made sense.) – Scott Morrison Jan 30 at 5:52
1  
'Avoid duplication' is a key point. The DOI wasn't intended to be a unique identifier, but it inevitably gets used as one, and duplicate assignment complicates things. – Andrew Jan 30 at 11:16
    
@Andrew But the Object represented by the Digital Object Identifier, i.e. the published paper, is not the same Object represented by the arXiv identifier, i.e. the preprint. So "a paper" (really, a preprint and a published paper) having two distinct identifiers is not duplication, it's correct bookkeeping. – Najib Idrissi Jan 30 at 15:38
    
@NajibIdrissi this is indeed correct, but if we provide two DOIs people will probably find it tricky to maintain that distinction. Having a separate type of identifier avoids a bit of the confusion. – Andrew Jan 30 at 16:36
2  
To the extent that the preprint and the published paper have distinct identities, remember they already have distinct, globally unique identifiers (an arxiv id and a DOI). – Scott Morrison Jan 30 at 21:32

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.