Dumb question #436: what does DOI stand for?
Digital Object Identifier. Read the original post:
Will work on this after the weekend when the grandchildren have decamped to Cornwall. We should have a whole week of non-interruptions!
For any forum in which you participate, if you would like to be identified as a contributor/author, let me know. In general, for forum discussions, I will only identify those who specifically request it to be authors.
I officially request a DOI for @jammycakes series on truthfulness and YEC. Is that possible?
Well, five uploads done: those you requested, and a couple of bonus tracks.
Can you put a narrative here of how these are connected, with DOIs?
I see all kinds of interesting things appear simply by posting the URL!
@Jongarvey, would consider renaming the Adam and MRCA Studies post? You can keep the same link, but MRCA is going to create confusion.
Josh, I was dubious about doing that, because the only real value of linking to the piece at all is to do with its being an early mention of the theory, warts and all. I got the “MRCA” thing either from Opderbeck or Rohde, so that’s how the paper-trail runs.
@evograd have you thought about registering DOIs to some of your more important blog posts?
It’s never crossed my mind. What would the benefits of registering DOIs be?
Read the original article:
It enables us to cite your work in academic publications, and give you due credit for your work. It also guarantees your work will be around if your blog site is shut down sometime. In your case there is an additional advantage. Right now you are anonymous, but maybe one day you want to unmask yourself. You can then add your ORCID id and name to all your registered DOI’s retroactively, and add it to your CV as public engagement work. DOI’s are a way to give people a way to treat your digital work as legitimate academic output if it is high quality enough.
Hmm, I’ll bear it in mind, but to be honest I don’t see anything I’ve published so far as being worth citing in an academic publication, and I can’t really see myself ever wanting to connect this work inparticular with my professional life.
If I do decide to blog explicitly as professional outreach I’ll probably start a new blog with less explicit mentions of creationism/ID. Then I would consider making it all official. As it stands, I don’t think extensive engagement with creationism/ID would be viewed favourably in academic applications. I imagine it would be viewed as a waste or time or worse, giving unnecessary attention to irrelevant pseudoscience. Maybe it’s a cultural difference, but in Europe I think we’re more inclined to ignore creationism/ID rather than engage with it, since it’s not as pervasive an idea over here.
Same here. The two of us are clear outliers.
Some might want to cite it to quote Nathaniel Jeanson by way of you, or give you credit for a point you make. This isn’t journal level engagement, but there are helpful things you are putting out there.
4 posts were split to a new topic: The Opportunities of Digital Dialogue
I wonder if you still agree think this now. There is quite a bit I wish had been available to cite for our review.
I’d still want to remain anonymous, but if you think it really is citable I’ll look into making a start on it.