Hi Camila,
Thanks for raising this topic! I’m not sure I can provide a bullet-proof response, but I’m happy to share some thoughts.
I am somewhat reluctant about assigning new DOIs to existing resources—unless that resource completely changes. And in that case, I would probably consider leaving the “old” resource as it is—and creating a brand-new resource, if that option is feasible. Would adding 10 new records to a dataset constitute a ‘scientifically significant’ change? Probably not. Would adding 10,000 records? Perhaps, but it’s worth adding a new DOI?
The benefit of having different DOIs for different versions is of course that users are able to cite a specific version of the dataset in a machine-readable manner. But in my opinion this can also lead to confusion. And, as you point out, the vast majority of users who access data through GBIF will download based on a specific taxonomic, geographic and/or temporal focus—and obtain data from multiple datasets—for which a unique download DOI is assigned. In this case, the citation of data will be very specific, as it will point to the contributing datasets and allow others to re-download the exact same data.
I’m actually not familiar with many IPT users who have taken advantage of versioning through new DOIs. I believe the option is only available for organizations who have their own Datacite credentials—which isn’t that many. But perhaps some of them can chime in here as well? Would be great to get some more insights!
Best regards,
Daniel