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

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> writes:

> On 10/06/2014 11:00 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
>> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 10/06/2014 09:32 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
>>>> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> Who cares what the authors intend? I mean, they are not reading the
>>>>>> paper, are they?
>>>>>
>>>>> For reviewing, what the authors intend is extremely important.  Having
>>>>> different rendering of the paper interfere with the authors' message is
>>>>> something that should be avoided at all costs.
>>>>
>>>> Really? So, for example, you think that a reviewer with impared vision
>>>> should, for example, be forced to review a paper using the authors
>>>> rendering, regardless of whether they can read it or not?
>>>
>>> No, but this is not what I was talking about. I was talking about
>>> interfering with the authors' message via changes from the rendering
>>> that the authors' set up.
>>
>> It *is* exactly what you are talking about.
>
> Well, maybe I was not being clear, but I thought that I was talking about
> rendering  changes interfering with comprehension of the authors' intent.


And if only you had a definition of "rendering changes that interfere
with authors intent" as opposed to just "rendering changes".

I can guarantee that rendering a paper to speech WILL change at least
some of the authors intent because, for example, figures will not
reproduce. You state that this should be avoided at all costs.

I think this is wrong. There are many reasons to change rendering. That
should be the readers choice.

Phil

Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 12:23:50 UTC