Subject: Re: CCL:document format for ACS journals?

From: Christoph van Wüllen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:26:29 +0100

>I would think that given the wide availability of such programs, it 
>wouldn't matter
>that a journal required such a thing.
>

As long as hard copies are accepted, everything is fine. Publishers simply
have to concentrate on (quite few) electronic formats they feed to 
the production line, they are allowed to be restrictive there.

If a publisher does not accept hard copies (only electronic versions), this
becomes painful for those using non-standard word processors, and 
then it matters.

Yours,

-- 
+---------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Prof. Christoph van Wullen      | Tele-Phone (+49) (0)30 314 27870    |
| Technische Universitat Sekr. C3 | Tele-Fax   (+49) (0)30 314 23727    |
| Strasse des 17. Juni 135        | eMail                               |
| D-10623 Berlin, Germany         | [email-masked]    |
+---------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

---

From: "Dr. Richard Wood" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:55:05 -0500

> becomes painful for those using non-standard word processors, and

Then isn't that the problem/fault of the individual and NOT the journal?
I mean it's not the ACS's fault if one chooses to not use a program such as
MS Word which can be EASILY obtained.

There are things far more serious that we should be getting worked up about.

> Yours,

Richard

--
Richard L. Wood, Ph. D.
Physical/Computational Chemist
Post-doctoral Associate
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

---

From: "Zoltan A. Fekete" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:42:07 +0100

On 11 Jan 2001, at 11:26, Christoph van Wüllen wrote:
>[...] If a publisher does not accept hard copies (only electronic versions), this
 But we should WANT the publishers to require electronic versions, 
in order for them to provide us with publications available in true 
electronical format (rather than makeshift copies like graphic-only 
PDF scan some journals have these days)! And for that it is better to 
ask those using non-standard word processors to have their format 
converted into something widely accessible, than to expect all the 
world to have converters for everybody else's particular piece of 
software...
Dr. Zoltan A. Fekete <[email-masked]>
 SZTE University of Szeged, Department of Physical Chemistry
 Szeged, Rerrich ter 1, POB 105, H-6701 Hungary, FAX 36-62-544652
        <http://www.jate.u-szeged.hu/physchem/VIBLAB/>

---

From: Marc Baaden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:28:47 +0000

Hello there,

in general I don't interfere too much with the discussions
on the list, but I must say, that I strongly disagree with
the latest posts on this subject, and I would like to make
an important point (at least in my opinion):

Isn't the (MOST) important thing about publishing a scientific
article the content of the article ? At least I thought so .. ?

In that sense I suggest that NO ONE should be "discriminated"
because he doesn't use MS Word. And let me add that I know a
number of well-established groups where you wouldn't find a 
single copy of MS Word, and still they publish excellent articles
in excellent journals.

Isn't the job of the scientist to do actual research and then
share this knowledge with thescientific community ? 

Even if the article was hand-written, it could be a Nobel prize,
no ?

So, well I certainly exaggerate, but I hope my point is clear.

Let me just add that furthermore a scientist's job (even not for a
computer scientist) is NOT to do typesetting, conversion of file-
formats etc., ...

This is the editor's job. That's what he should actually be doing.
And so I pledge that an article, presented in any carefully written
form should ALWAYS be considered for publication, whether it is in
a convenient file format or not.

A last general point is, that even using MS word exclusively, you have
to spend a lot of time on getting a document which meets some of the
file format guidelines given on several Journal webpages. That is, you
particularly run in trouble if the article is written jointly by several
groups and they use different versions of Word (Word 6, Word 97, Word 2000,
Word for Mac, ...). For some PC documents for example it is IMPOSSIBLE to
open them on a Mac ....
Imposing thus a fixed file format/version would imply buying a new computer,
changing the operating system, changing the program version ... ?? 
(Again I exaggerate, though I have painful experience with spending up to
two weeks just for producing a coherent file format for some papers ..)

I'd also like to make some specific comments:

[email-masked] said:
>> But we should WANT the publishers to require electronic versions,  in
>> order for them to provide us with publications available in true
>> PDF scan some journals have these days)!

You wouldn't solve that problem by imposing a fixed file format.The journals
producing such PDF files in general require camera ready formats, because
they don't want to spend ANY time on re-typing/reprocessing your document,
even not if it is in Word format.
Furthermore, MS Word is not really a good format for what you suggest. You'd
rather need a format like XML for example, where the output "medium"
can easily be modified (html/pdf/ps/...) without touching the contents.

[email-masked] said:
>> And for that it is better to  ask those using non-standard word
>> processors to have their format  converted into something widely
>> accessible, than to expect all the  world to have converters for
>> everybody else's particular piece of  software...

Sorry, but I really cannot agree with that. First, on what basis do you
claim that MS Word would be something widely accessible and preferrable
to for example LaTex ?
Second, I wouldn't expect anybody to have any converter. Either the
publisher/editor should do his work and really typeset the manuscript,
starting from scratch, or even if they do it electronically, a simple
ASCII text file might be of as much help as a Word document (again I
exagerate, but what I want to make clear is that except [maybe] the 
spacing and the font characteristics like plain/bold/etc., the editor
anyway doesn't need any further information.
The tables are ALWAYS re-done,and the figures are also inserted separately.

[email-masked] said:
>> Or perhaps we need to be not so serious?  People make it seem like
>> nobody in the world uses MS Word or Word Perfect, or that it is
>> impossible to get either. While I was still a graduate student
>> (without funding, btw) I was able to purchase my OWN copy of MS Word
>> (which I composed my dissertation on); and we all know that
>> researchers in academe NEVER pay for software out of their own
>> pockets, plus they generally get an academic discount, the same with
>> textbooks.
>> So what is the big deal here? 

The deal is, that you wouldn't want to waste your time to migrate all
your working environment set up for years to a system as restricted and
unreliable as windows, nor loose your nerves trying to convert to any
imposed format. In particular as it's the CONTENT of the article that s
important and not it's design !

[email-masked] said:
>> > If a publisher does not accept hard copies (only electronic
>> > versions), this becomes painful for those using non-standard word
>> > processors, and then it matters. 
>> Then isn't that the problem/fault of the individual and NOT the
>> journal? I mean it's not the ACS's fault if one chooses to not use a
>> program such as MS Word which can be EASILY obtained.

No, definitely not ! The individual is called a scientist, and his task
is to do research, as good as he can. And if that includes not using
MS Windows per default, than it's the scientist's choice, but it in no
way lessens the value of the research that was performed. Imposing a file
format is just an obstacle and a subjective way of selecting research not
by its quality, but by a "commercial" criterion.

Best regards,

  Marc Baaden

-- 
 Dr. Marc Baaden - Labo MSM (UMR 7551) - http://crypt.u-strasbg.fr/marc
 mailto:[email-masked]     -     FAX (+49) 40 33 39 68 50 8
 ICQ#  11466242   -  Tel: (+33) 6 09 84 32 17 or (+49) 40 33 39 68 50 8

---

From: "Samuel A. Abrash" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 19:33:00 -0500

Dear Marc, and the majority of correspondents on this issue.

An early post quoted the ACS style guide.

The post clearly stated that the factual basis of this thread is incorrect.

ACS accepts word processors other than Word and Wordperfect.

In fact, as long as the document is clearly labelled with word processor
and computer, they will accept any word processor, including TEX and LATEX.

It is time that we ended a thread made pointless by its response to an
initial incorrect assertion.

Samuel A. Abrash

At 10:28 PM 01/11/2001 +0000, Marc Baaden wrote:
>-= This is automatically added to each message by mailing script =-
>[email-masked] -- To Everybody  | [email-masked] -- To Admins
>[email-masked] -- HELP CHEMISTRY or HELP SEARCH
>[email-masked] -- archive search    |    Gopher: gopher.ccl.net 70
>Ftp: ftp.ccl.net  |  WWW: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/   | Jan: [email-masked]
>
>
>
>
>
Samuel A. Abrash
Associate Professor
Department of Chemistry 
University of Richmond
Richmond, VA 23173
Phone: (804) 289-8248
Fax: (804) 287-1897
E-mail: [email-masked]
http://www.richmond.edu/~sabrash
"The time it takes to complete a scientific project is given by the
equation t = 2a + b, where a is the original estimate, 2 is a correction
factor, and b is a number large compared to 2a."