--On Thursday, July 02, 2015 20:39 +0200 Eliot Lear
<lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> And to John's other point:
>
>> Other than the "eat your own dogfood" principle, it unclear to
>> me that any particular one of them is a clear choice. Maybe
>> the choice of DOIs is more or less arbitrary or reflects a
>> too-narrow community of discussion (raising, again, the
>> question of why the community is being asked only now). But,
>> if this is going to be posted as an IAB document, I think the
>> IAB is obligated to explain the decision, rather than putting
>> up a document that strongly implies that DOIs are the only
>> plausible choice.
>
> There's a reason why the IAB is vested with this
> responsibility. A bunch of engineers who know absolutely
> nothing about the publishing industry and seemingly little
> about academia shouldn't make this decision. The professional
> the IAB hired made a recommendation based on a lot of
> discussion with a lot of people. Please let's make a mole hill
> out of a mole hill, for once.
Eliot,
In the interest of clarity, let me translate my comment into the
perspective you are expressing above. I am not trying to get
the decision changed, much less argue that we should be doing
something else (or nothing) instead. I am suggesting that, if
this is going to be produced as an IAB document and it is based
on professional advice that is, in turn, based on significant
research and input, then the document should contain an
explanation of the choices made, both because that is
professionally responsible and because educating this community
is not a bad idea (and that doing it through text is more
efficient than doing it by discussion on this list in response
to a call for comments).
Given that the kind of skilled professional evaluation and
discussion t which you describe occurred, the document should
not suggest, as I think it does, that DOIs, or that particular
choice of format in the DOI suffix, were the only plausible
choices. It should not suggest it because such an assertion
would be false and false assertions are inconsistent with the
level of professionalism and review that you assert occurred.
(For the record, I believe the first but am wondering about the
second.)
best,
john