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

On 10/08/2014 05:31 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
> "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.

PLoS doesn't appear to have a bug reporting system in place.  Even their 
general assistance email is obsfucated.  I sent them a message anyway.

>> 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.

In this case, even the original was low resolution.

>> 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.

I would suggest that this should have been one of their highest priorities.

> Phil


peter

Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 12:47:34 UTC