- From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 15:31:14 +0100
- To: "Gray\, Alasdair" <A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk>
- Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, "public-lod\@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, "semantic-web\@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
"Gray, Alasdair" <A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk> writes: >> This is true. So, if the reason that ESWC and ISWC only accept papers in >> PDF is because we need LNCS for tenure and that they will only take PDF, >> it would be good to have a public statement about this. > > I think PDF is only at the submission stage. For camera ready the source file > (s) - latex or word - are required. Again, I'd like to know for sure. > Also in this brave new world, how would the length of a submission be determined? There are lots of alternative measures. Word limits would work. Page based limits are pretty daft anyway. I am sure that you, like I, have do some strange \baselineskip fiddling or shrunk a figure to 99, then 98, then 97% until it finally fits, although it isn't entirely visible any more. Word-limits avoid this. For myself, I would drop word limits as well, and specify a reading time of around 30 minutes. I have certainly gone through papers in the past and made them less readable so that they fit within the page limit. Ever removed all your adjectives? What about replacing conjunctions with punctuation? If the reviewers get bored ploughing through an overly long paper, they just send a review with tl;dr. One of the interesting thing about innovating with the publication process is that it helps to find out what about a scientific paper we actually care about and what are just hang overs from our past. Phil
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 14:31:41 UTC