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

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

> PLOS is an interesting case.  The HTML for PLOS articles is relatively
> readable.  However, the HTML that the PLOS setup produces is failing at math,
> even for articles from August 2014.
>
> As well, sometimes when I zoom in or out (so that I can see the math better)
> Firefox stops displaying the paper, and I have to reload the whole page.

Interesting bug that. Worth reporting to PLoS.

> Strangely, PLOS accepts low-resolution figures, which in one paper I looked at
> are quite difficult to read.

Yep. Although, it often provides several links to download higher
res images, including in the original file format. Quite handy.

> However, maybe the PLOS method can be improved to the point where the HTML is
> competitive with PDF.

Indeed. For the moment, HTML views are about 1/5 of PDF. Partly this is
because scientists are used to viewing in print format, I suspect, but
partly not.

I'm hoping that, eventually, PLoS will stop using image based maths. I'd
like to be able to zoom maths independently, and copy and paste it in
either mathml or tex. Mathjax does this now already.

Phil

Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 12:32:15 UTC