[Esip-preserve] Citations guideline revisions

Mon Jul 25 13:59:13 EDT 2011

OK, here's a  suggested revision that seeks to be more accommodating, while noting why DOIs might be preferred.

Cheers,

-m. 

The assignment of a unique and persistent locator offers a more consistent approach for managing current location information. Any reasonably persistent location service such as DOIs, ARKs, Handles, PURLs etc. is acceptable. Scientific publishers, however, are most familiar with the DOI. Furthermore, Thomson Reuters  is exploring the inclusion of DOIs and possibly ARKs in their citation indices, such as the Web of Science. This suggests that while any persistent locator can be used in a citation, DOIs and possibly ARKs are more likely to be accepted by publishers. Note DOIs, ARKs, andn Handles are useful to locate full data sets or collections. Other locators and identifiers may be more appropriate for locating individual records or files. Best practice is that the suffix of the identifier does not include a reference to the archive in case the data are moved from the original location where the persistent identifier was assigned initially.
On 25 Jul 2011, at 11:02 AM, Moses, John F. (GSFC-5860) wrote:

> Hi Mark,
> Thanks for the 'still stands' assertion.  Still proceeding with a description of the work for NASA to sponsor a DOI process...
> 
> John F Moses
> EOSDIS Science Operations, ESDIS Project Code 423
> BLD 32, E208B
> Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771
> voice at GSFC   (301)614-5308
> fax at GSFC   (301)614-5267
> Email              john.f.moses at nasa.gov
> -----Original Message-----
> From: esip-preserve-bounces at lists.esipfed.org [mailto:esip-preserve-bounces at lists.esipfed.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Parsons
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 12:27 PM
> To: Ruth Duerr
> Cc: esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> Subject: Re: [Esip-preserve] Citations guideline revisions
> 
> I sorta agree with Ruth. At one level any reasonably persistent locator would work, but the statement "The most broadly accepted locator in the scientific publishing world is the Digital Object Identifier (DOI)" still stands. For data citations to be accepted by journals authors and data centers will have better luck with the DOI. The ARK might be a second choice.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -m. 
> On 25 Jul 2011, at 10:14 AM, Ruth Duerr wrote:
> 
>> I am not convinced that DOIs, ARKs, and Handles can be recommended equally - I also don't understand why if we are adding identifiers to a list, PURLs, etc. have been left off, since if you are broadening the field to include other identifiers any of the URL-based locators could work.
>> 
>> Aside from that, I do think an argument can be made for DOIs and ARKs to be recommended more strongly than Handles.  The issue is that Thomson-Reuters is working with the DataCite folks to include both DOIs and ARKs in their citation indexes, Web of Knowledge, and Web of Science.  I haven't heard that any group is doing the same for Handles - does anyone have knowledge about other efforts to include identifiers in citation indexes?  I think having use of your data show up in citation indexes is important and I would hesitate to recommend any identifier that didn't get included.
>> 
>> Ruth
>> 
>> On Jul 25, 2011, at 7:34 AM, Curt Tilmes wrote:
>> 
>>> Bob (and Mark) recently made a number of very good revisions to
>>> the Citations provider guidelines:
>>> 
>>> http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Interagency_Data_Stewardship/Citations/provider_guidelines
>>> 
>>> In particular, Bob added reference to ARKs and Handles in addition to
>>> DOIs.  I think those additions are warranted and helpful in most
>>> places, based on our discussions of ARKs and Handles.
>>> 
>>> One place I think we perhaps need some additional discussion is in the
>>> "cluster recommendation" part:
>>> 
>>> Old:
>>> 
>>> The most broadly accepted locator in the scientific publishing world
>>> is the Digital Object Identifier (DOI). The Cluster recommends the use
>>> of DOIs to persistently locate full data sets or collections. Other
>>> locators and identifiers may be more appropriate at the record level.
>>> 
>>> New:
>>> 
>>> The most broadly accepted locators in the scientific publishing world
>>> are the Digital Object Identifier (DOI), the Archival Resource Key
>>> (ARK), and Handles. The Cluster recommends the use of DOIs, ARKs, or
>>> Handles to persistently locate full data sets or collections. Other
>>> locators and identifiers may be more appropriate for locating
>>> individual records or files.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Are we, as a cluster, now recommending DOIs, ARKs, or Handles equally?
>>> 
>>> Curt
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Esip-preserve mailing list
>>> Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
>>> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Esip-preserve mailing list
>> Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
>> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-preserve mailing list
> Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve