Merge pull request #8 from katrinleinweber/secure-DOIs

use new, secure DOI resolver

Author: cboettig

content/_index.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ title: "The CodeMeta Project"
 
 ## Motivation
 
-Research relies heavily on scientific software, and a large and growing fraction of researchers are engaged in developing software as part of their own research ([Hannay et al 2009](http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SECSE.2009.5069155 "How do scientists develop and use scientific software?")). Despite this, _infrastructure to  support the preservation, discovery, reuse, and attribution of software_ lags substantially behind that of other research products such as journal  articles and research data. This lag is driven not so much by a lack of  technology as it is by a lack of unity: existing mechanisms to archive,  document, index, share, discover, and cite software contributions are heterogeneous among both disciplines and archives and rarely meet best practices ([Howison 2015](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23538 "Software in the scientific literature: Problems with seeing, finding, and using software mentioned in the biology literature")).  Fortunately, a rapidly growing movement to improve preservation, discovery, reuse and attribution of academic software is now underway: a recent [NIH report](http://softwarediscoveryindex.org), conferences and working groups of [FORCE11](https://www.force11.org/), [WSSSPE](http://wssspe.researchcomputing.org.uk/) & [Software Sustainability Institute](http://www.software.ac.uk/), and the rising adoption of repositories like [GitHub](https://github.com), [Zenodo](https://zenodo.org), [figshare](https://figshare.com) & [DataONE](https://www.dataone.org) by academic software developers. Now is the time to improve how these resources can talk to each other.  
+Research relies heavily on scientific software, and a large and growing fraction of researchers are engaged in developing software as part of their own research ([Hannay et al 2009](https://doi.org/10.1109/SECSE.2009.5069155 "How do scientists develop and use scientific software?")). Despite this, _infrastructure to  support the preservation, discovery, reuse, and attribution of software_ lags substantially behind that of other research products such as journal  articles and research data. This lag is driven not so much by a lack of  technology as it is by a lack of unity: existing mechanisms to archive,  document, index, share, discover, and cite software contributions are heterogeneous among both disciplines and archives and rarely meet best practices ([Howison 2015](https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23538 "Software in the scientific literature: Problems with seeing, finding, and using software mentioned in the biology literature")).  Fortunately, a rapidly growing movement to improve preservation, discovery, reuse and attribution of academic software is now underway: a recent [NIH report](http://softwarediscoveryindex.org), conferences and working groups of [FORCE11](https://www.force11.org/), [WSSSPE](http://wssspe.researchcomputing.org.uk/) & [Software Sustainability Institute](http://www.software.ac.uk/), and the rising adoption of repositories like [GitHub](https://github.com), [Zenodo](https://zenodo.org), [figshare](https://figshare.com) & [DataONE](https://www.dataone.org) by academic software developers. Now is the time to improve how these resources can talk to each other.  
 
 
 ## What can software metadata do for you?

static/codemetar/articles/flat.json

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
     "http://purl.org/dc/terms/identifier": [
       {
         "@type": "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string",
-        "@value": "http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.828487"
+        "@value": "https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.828487"
       }
     ],
     "http://purl.org/dc/terms/title": [