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

If you mean that published papers have to be in PDF, but that they can 
optionally have a second format, then I had no problem with this proposal.  I 
also have no problem with encouraging use of other formats.

However, this is an added burden on conference organizers.  Someone would have 
to volunteer to handle the extra work, particularly the work involved in 
checking that papers using the second format abide by the publishing requirements.

peter



On 10/07/2014 05:52 AM, Robert Stevens wrote:
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 13:33:30 UTC