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

What I'd suggest for conference organisers is something like the following:

1. Keep the PDF as the main thing, as it's not going anywhere soon.
3. Also allow submission in some alternative form, including semantic 
content, and have the conference run a competition for alternative 
publishing forms - including voting by delegates on what  they like and 
what they want. this could promote such alternative forms and offer a 
migration route over time.

Robert.

On 07/10/2014 13:27, Phillip Lord wrote:
> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> writes:
>> So, you believe that there is an excellent set of tools for preparing,
>> reviewing, and reading scientific publishing.
>>
>> Package them up and make them widely available.  If they are good, people will
>> use them.
>>
>> Convince those who run conferences.  If these people are convinced, then they
>> will allow their use in conferences or maybe even require their use.
> Is that not the point of the discussion?
>
> Unfortuantely, we do not know why ISWC and ESWC insist on PDF.
>
>> I'm not convinced by what I'm seeing right now, however.
> Sure, but at least the discussion has meant that you have looked at some
> of the tools again. That's no bad thing.
>
> My question would be, are more convinced than you were last time you
> looked or less?
>
> Phil
>
>

-- 
Professor Robert Stevens
Bio-health Informatics Group
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester
United Kingdom
M13 9PL

Robert.Stevens@Manchester.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 6251
Blog: http://robertdavidstevens.wordpress.com
Web: http://staff.cs.manchester.ac.uk/~stevensr/

KBO

Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 12:52:46 UTC