I just added some 20k links to (gratis) #OpenAccess DOIs on the English #Wikipedia.

But damn, is #Wiley obnoxious.

DOI resolution may randomly fail and require third party #cookies. The destination is a tracking fest with Google, Facebook, Adobe, Twitter, MoatAds, AddThis.



Excellent work (you + others) on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedi ! Would you recommend the use of oadoi.org/<DOI> clickable links in paper bibliographies, where journals require DOIs?

As for , I agree that word is "obnoxious" rather than "wily":



· · Web · 1 · 0 · 0

@boud Nice word!

Yes, if you don't have much time to spend on it I think that indiscriminately linking oadoi.org is a reasonable solution. The Italian Wikipedia does so since a while ago. It can be surprisingly hard with some #latex packages to have custom URLs shown, but not too hard.

The oadoi.org URL target may vary in the future, though, so I'd preferably add a stable target like the handle URL of an institutional repository, where available.


Thanks for the feedback. I normally only see a DOI as an *extra* URL, even if that's what the journal wants - in cosmology the best URLs are the links, nearly universal since the mid 1990s, which the journals see as politically incorrect (cosmo.torun.pl/blog/arXiv_refs). We'll know in a decade or so if institutional repositories are stable... :)

Hacking packages to get them to satisfy journal style and has long been an annoying distraction from the content.

@boud Institutional repositories have already existed for a couple decades, so I think we already know their track record. If you manually add a permanent URL you can pick your own preferences: often oadoi.org will point to arxiv, but that may change later.

Inscrivez-vous pour prendre part à la conversation

Le réseau social de l'avenir : Pas d'annonces, pas de surveillance institutionnelle, conception éthique et décentralisation ! Possédez vos données avec Mastodon !