Hi all,
A question elsewhere about doai.io reminded me of this, and that
no-one ever replied. So, a reply :-)
It would certainly be nice to support green OA (which, historically,
we've not always paid very much attention to...).
I think *switching* to replace
dx.doi.org might be a bad idea. For
example, it's a hassle for anyone who does have access and wishes to
see the original copy rather than a MS version. Before switching, we'd
also need a better understanding of how often it updates/confirms
archived copies are still available, or whether the original has
become accessible (consider a PNAS paper; they have a moving wall, so
in the first six months you'd want a self-archived copy, and after
that would prefer the journal.)
But we can still use it.
Some options:
a) We display a second "free copy, if available" link after the DOI,
for all DOIs, trusting that it will fail safely - it probably will;
see, eg,
http://doai.io/10.1093/femsle/fnw043
b) We process our list of DOIs which exist on-wiki, look them up
through doai.io &
dx.doi.org, flag all the ones where the two differ;
then add a "free copy available" link to these citations in
particular. Run every few months as needed.
The first raises false optimism; the second might involve a lot of
update editing. But they're workable.
Thoughts?
A.
On 28 February 2016 at 14:36, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Should our wikis use it?
http://doai.io/
Nemo
_______________________________________________
OpenAccess mailing list
OpenAccess(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk