2

I was reading Extracting tree crown areas from remote sensing data (visual images and LiDAR) with interest and saw a comment made by @Aaron about links to documents breaking and how answers should be better than a 1 liner.

This got me thinking after I had followed the link to the paper. Just about any decent Journal utilises the DOI. So my suggestion and I have no idea how difficult it would be to implement in GIS StackExchange is to have another button or augment the current link button to allow a user to specifically enter the DOI number. In theory @Aarons arguments should go away as the DOI is unique and persists.

http://doi.org/10.3390/s141222643

Just an idea?

7
  • That is a good idea. Although providing a full reference to the literature would also work.
    – Aaron Mod
    Dec 23, 2014 at 16:53
  • 1
    unfortunately it does not help when links break (as many websites get revamped way to too often).
    – Mapperz Mod
    Dec 23, 2014 at 17:49
  • 1
    @Mapperz, so you have had a doi link fail on you?
    – Hornbydd
    Dec 23, 2014 at 18:56
  • 1
    doi is ok but the link through is unavailable dx.doi.org/10.1007/springerreference_62186
    – Mapperz Mod
    Dec 23, 2014 at 19:40
  • Interesting I have always understood the doi was a solution to all these problems, clearly not!
    – Hornbydd
    Dec 23, 2014 at 23:21
  • @Mapperz According to the authorities, that's not a correct DOI. Where did it come from?
    – whuber
    Dec 24, 2014 at 1:24
  • This would need to be implemented SE network-wide rather than locally at GIS SE so I have set it to status-deferred i.e. deferred to Meta Stack Exchange.
    – PolyGeo Mod
    Dec 15, 2015 at 8:04

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

This was asked long ago but has not been answered.

To implement this would need to be a SE network-wide enhancement and much broader than the slight site customization that we can achieve internal to GIS SE.

Consequently, I recommend that you research it at Meta Stack Exchange instead of here. I just did and found the Q&A to Add explicit support for citing scientific literature that looks hopeful.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .