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

But damn, is obnoxious.

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

· · Web · 1 · 1 · 3


Excellent work (you + others) on ! Would you recommend the use of<DOI> clickable links in paper bibliographies, where journals require DOIs?

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


@boud Nice word!

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

The 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 #ArXiv links, nearly universal since the mid 1990s, which the journals see as politically incorrect ( We'll know in a decade or so if institutional repositories are stable... :)

Hacking #LaTeX packages to get them to satisfy journal style and #OpenAccess 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 will point to arxiv, but that may change later.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
La Quadrature du Net - Mastodon - Media Fédéré

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!