Re: scientific publishing process (was Re: Cost and access)

Hi John, Kingsley, et al,

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:39 AM, John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is an incredibly rich and interestingly conversation. I think there
> are two separate themes:
> 1. What is required and/or asked-for by the conference organizers...
> a. ...that is needed for the review process
> b. ...that is needed to implement value-added services for the conference
> c. ...that contributes to the body of work
>
> 2. What is required and/or asked for by the publisher?
>
> All of (1) is about the "meat" of the contributions, including
> establishing a long-term legacy. (2) is about (presumably) prestigious
> output.
>
> What added services could esp. Easychair provide that would go beyond 1.a.
> and contribute to 1.b. and 1.c., etc.? Are there any Easychair committers
> watching this thread? ;)
>
> John
>
> --
> John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
> Deputy Director, Web Science Research Center
> Tetherless World Constellation (RPI)
> <http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com>
> Twitter & Skype: olyerickson
>
>
This makes me think of PLoS. For example, PLoS has a published format
guidelines using Work and Latex (http://www.plosone.org/static/guidelines),
a workflow for semantically structuring their resulting output and their
final output is well structured and available in XML based on a known
standard (http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd),
PDF and the published HTML on their website (
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011233).

This results In semantically meaningful XML that is transformed to HTML

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObjectAttachment.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011233&representation=XML

Interestingly as well, they have provided this framework in an open source
form:
http://www.ambraproject.org/

Clearly the publication process can support a semantic solution and when
its in the best interest of the publisher. They will adopt and drive their
own markup processes to meet external demand.

Providing tools that both the publisher and the author may use
independently could simplify such an effort, but is not a main driver in
achieving that final result you see in PLoS. This is especially the case
given even the debate concerning file formats here. For PLoS, the solution
that is currently successful is the one that worked to solve todays
immediate local need with todays tools.

Cheers,
Mark

p.s. Finally, on the reference of moving repositories such as EPrints and
DSpace towards supporting semantic markup of their contents. Being somewhat
of a participant in LoD on the DSpace side, I note that these efforts are
inherently just "Repository Centric", describing the the structure of the
repository (IE Collections of Items), not the semantic structure contained
within the Item contents (articles, citations, formulas, data tables,
figures, ideas). In both platforms, these capabilities are in their
infancy, lacking any rendering other than to offer the original file for
download, they ultimately suffer from the absence of semantic structure in
the content going into them.

-- 
Mark R. Diggory