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

from reading all these emails it seems to me that we are somehow thinking
just in terms of the same document just that more friendly for a web
browser. I would argue that having a layout friendly document has been
solved long ago, the problem is having an interoperable document beyond
just having the usual metadata (author, tittle, etc).

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Diogo FC Patrao <djogopatrao@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
> pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> One problem with allowing HTML submission is ensuring that reviewers can
>> correctly view the submission as the authors intended it to be viewed.  How
>> would you feel if your paper was rejected because one of the reviewers
>> could not view portions of it?  At least with PDF there is a reasonably
>> good chance that every paper can be correctly viewed by all its reviewers,
>> even if they have to print it out.  I don't think that the same claim can
>> be made for HTML-based systems.
>>
>
>
> The majority of journals I'm familiar with mandates a certain format for
> submission: font size, figure format, etc. So, in a HTML format submission,
> there should be rules as well, a standard CSS and the right elements and
> classes. Not different from getting a word(c) or latex template.
>
>
>
>> Web conference vitally use the web in their reviewing and publishing
>> processes.  Doesn't that show their allegiance to the web?  Would the use
>> of HTML make a conference more webby?
>
>
> As someone said, this is leading by example.
>
>
> dfcp
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/03/2014 09:11 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In my opinion, the opposite is true. PDF I almost always end up printing
>>> out. This isn't the point though.
>>>
>>> Necessity is the mother of invention. In the ideal world, a web
>>> conference would allow only HTML submission. Failing that, at least HTML
>>> submission. But, currently, we cannot submit HTML at all. What is the
>>> point of creating a better method, if we can't use it?
>>>
>>> The only argument that seems at all plausible to me is, well, we've
>>> always done it like this, and it's too much effort to change. I could
>>> appreciate that.
>>>
>>> Anyway, the argument is going round in circles.
>>>
>>> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>  In my opinion PDF is currently the clear winner over HTML in both the
>>>> ability
>>>> to produce readable documents and the ability to display readable
>>>> documents in
>>>> the way that the author wants them to display.  In the past I have tried
>>>> various means to produce good-looking HTML and I've always gone back to
>>>> a
>>>> setup that produces PDF.  If a document is available in both HTML and
>>>> PDF I
>>>> almost always choose to view it in PDF.  This is the case even though I
>>>> have
>>>> particular preferences in how I view documents.
>>>>
>>>> If someone wants to change the format of conference submissions, then
>>>> they are
>>>> going to have to cater to the preferences of authors, like me, and
>>>> reviewers,
>>>> like me.  If someone wants to change the format of conference papers,
>>>> then
>>>> they are going to have to cater to the preferences of authors, like me,
>>>> attendees, like me, and readers, like me.
>>>>
>>>> I'm all for *better* methods for preparing, submitting, reviewing, and
>>>> publishing conference (and journal) papers.  So go ahead, create one.
>>>> But
>>>> just saying that HTML is better than PDF in some dimension, even if it
>>>> were
>>>> true, doesn't mean that HTML is better than PDF for this purpose.
>>>>
>>>> So I would say that the semantic web community is saying that there are
>>>> better
>>>> formats and tools for creating, reviewing, and publishing scientific
>>>> papers
>>>> than HTML and tools that create and view HTML.  If there weren't these
>>>> better
>>>> ways then an HTML-based solution might be tenable, but why use a worse
>>>> solution when a better one is available?
>>>>
>>>> peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/03/2014 08:02 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As it stands, the only statement that the semantic web community are
>>>>> making is that web formats are too poor for scientific usage.
>>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
Alexander Garcia
http://www.alexandergarcia.name/
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/75943.html
http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexgarciac