[Rdap] CrossRef or Other DOIs for Data Sets

[David Palmer]

How to understand Nature's dislike of CrossRef DOI?  Presumably the author
has included the CrossRef DOI in his article for his research data.  So at
this point how does the CrossRef metadata on the research data DOI come
into play?

thanks
David Palmer
University of Hong Kong



>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 16:22:05 -0600
> From: Ruth Duerr <ruth.duerr3 at gmail.com>
> To: "Research Data, Access and Preservation" <rdap at asis.org>
> Cc: "rdap at mail.asis.org" <rdap at mail.asis.org>
> Subject: Re: [Rdap] CrossRef or Other DOIs for Data Sets
> Message-ID: <F0C9E4E9-B47E-4FAB-8C3C-B0E3218A3879 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> But it should be noted that some publisher's, most notably the Nature
> Publishing Group, does not like accepting articles where the data cited
> uses a Cross-ref DOI, just due to the metadata issue (no comment on the
> justifiability of that).
>
> Ruth
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Sep 13, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Hutchinson, Alvin <HUTCHINSONA at si.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone feel strongly about using (or not using) a certain flavor of
> DOI for research data sets?
> >
> > We are the CrossRef registration agency for the Smithsonian and we?ve
> been doing publications for years but lately have been approached by
> scientists who want a DOI both for link permanence and citability.
> >
> > Would anyone recommend against using CrossRef in favor of another DOI
> type? And if so, which one(s)?
> >
> >
> > Please pardon my ignorance and let me know if there?s something obvious
> I am missing.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Alvin
> >
> >
> > Alvin Hutchinson
> > Smithsonian Libraries
> > 202.633.1031
> >
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kunverj.com/pipermail/rdap/attachments/20160919/fe954557/attachment.html>