91–100 of 141 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the record, if you upload the TEX, arXiv autogenerates the PDF.
The problem I face is that my papers is in multiple tex files in several folders connected to a main.tex using \includes. Is there a convenient option that will take care of this issue?
https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/21838/replace-inputf...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the record, if you upload the TEX, arXiv autogenerates the PDF.
The problem I face is that my papers is in multiple tex files in several folders connected to a main.tex using \includes. Is there a convenient option that will take care of this issue?
The basic (and unfortunate in a xkcd/1479 way) issue appears to be that the arXiv compile server doesn't allow writing to subdirectories. A subdir \include implicitly requires write access for the aux file.
This article misses one of the biggest value-adds of arXiv, at least in my field (Statistics): since almost everyone posts to arXiv, you can almost always find a free version of a published and potentially pay-walled paper. In the past, publishing in a peer-reviewed journal would (1) improve the paper through peer review, (2) signal the quality of the paper based on the prestige of the journal, and (3) distribute the…
> you can almost always find a free version of a published and potentially pay-walled paper. On personal research, I've used it for exactly this, but since what I've seen was only preprints, I've often wondered about the final version. It looks like I'm not alone.[1] Do many or any of the arXiv papers get updates with the improvements that come from peer reviews? Is there a need for arXiv for finals or do publishers…
Also, since you submit manuscripts to most journals in TeX, there's very little extra work involved in uploading the updated files also to arxiv. You maybe miss the copy editor's grammar corrections etc., but those are almost without exception unimportant --- also, more often than not, the copyediting by the publisher introduces errors not present in the original manuscript.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a fellow scientist, I'm much more concerned with how others will interpret these access data. I'm not excited about the prospect of yet another unreliable signal for e.g. hiring committees to latch onto, as they often do with journal impact factors and such. It might be nice if ArXiv would perhaps provide the data to researchers on request. Just curious -- what kinds of questions would you use this data to answer?
I want the data for the same reasons that any content producer in the Internet wants it. Bloggers, youtubers, any company...everyone. Despite the noise this data might contain, it seems it's useful for everyone except for scientists...to whom I am surprised to hear that it's better not to give the data, in case they misinterpret it. Very risky statement and precedent.
It's not that I am personally concerned with misinterpreting the data. I just think there could be some downsides to releasing the data without limiting access in some way. For one, I think there are already issues with the citation metrics are used and interpreted, for example in tenure evaluations. I don't think it would be a step in the right direction if this data were used towards the same end...
Can I just make a general plea? You should upload your paper to arXiv. When you do, please upload your source (tex, or word I imagine), as well as a PDF. For the blind, PDF is the worst possible format, and tex and word are the best formats. Don't hide, or lose, the blind-accessible version of your paper.
> For the blind, PDF is the worst possible format I'm surprised. Nobody has created an accessibility solution for PDFs after all these years of ubiquity? What's the story?
As an example, in post script the following example from Wikipedia would simply show the text Hello World:
%!PS
/Courier % name the desired font
20 selectfont % choose the size in points and establish
% the font as the current one
72 500 moveto % position the current point at
% coordinates 72, 500 (the origin is at the
% lower-left corner of the page)
(Hello world!) show % stroke the text in parentheses
showpage % print all on the page
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For the blind, PDF is the worst possible format I'm surprised. Nobody has created an accessibility solution for PDFs after all these years of ubiquity? What's the story?
Well, I don't know about PDF, but PostScript, which it's based on is basically just a programming language for drawing symbols in specific positions on a page. Depending on how it was written (or more likely, generated) this could be readable, or incredibly unreadable. As an example, in post script the following example from Wikipedia would simply show the text Hello World: %!PS /Courier % name the desired font 20 se…
It makes me wonder how screen readers work. Thinking out loud, it seems that the screen readers should let the applications (e.g., Word) handle their own parsing and presentation and obtain the data after that. Otherwise, the screen reader would have to reinvent many wheels, interpreting the code for all applications including all their versions, features, quirks, and platform integration issues - such a daunting and difficult task that it seems unlikely. But where do screen readers hook into the content? After it's output from the application but before it's an image for the screen (which could require OCR)? Ironically, I suppose PostScript or PDF could provide common interfaces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I don't know about PDF, but PostScript, which it's based on is basically just a programming language for drawing symbols in specific positions on a page. Depending on how it was written (or more likely, generated) this could be readable, or incredibly unreadable. As an example, in post script the following example from Wikipedia would simply show the text Hello World: %!PS /Courier % name the desired font 20 se…
Almost all formats would similarly require content to be parsed from code; for example, consider HTML, Word, or Excel. It makes me wonder how screen readers work. Thinking out loud, it seems that the screen readers should let the applications (e.g., Word) handle their own parsing and presentation and obtain the data after that. Otherwise, the screen reader would have to reinvent many wheels, interpreting the code for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I don't know about PDF, but PostScript, which it's based on is basically just a programming language for drawing symbols in specific positions on a page. Depending on how it was written (or more likely, generated) this could be readable, or incredibly unreadable. As an example, in post script the following example from Wikipedia would simply show the text Hello World: %!PS /Courier % name the desired font 20 se…
Almost all formats would similarly require content to be parsed from code; for example, consider HTML, Word, or Excel. It makes me wonder how screen readers work. Thinking out loud, it seems that the screen readers should let the applications (e.g., Word) handle their own parsing and presentation and obtain the data after that. Otherwise, the screen reader would have to reinvent many wheels, interpreting the code for…
PostScript and PDF have no such separation, the are the display logic. They are fully fledged programs that list the position, size, font, colour, of every symbol on every page, if you're lucky in a vaguely logical order, but there's no reason it should be. If the files were written by a human you may have some hope of extracting some of the content, but almost nobody writes PDF or PostScript by hand any-more.
Am I the only one who still uses xxx.lanl.gov ?
Probably not. :) (Is it a redirect now, or is it an actual mirror?) My understanding is that they switched to the new domain after people noticed the original was being blocked as porn by a bunch of automatic content filters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an excellent point. It makes one wonder why academic journal publishers even need to exist anymore. The peer reviewers (who don't get paid anyway) could just as easily do the same job and issue a "stamp of approval".
There is at least some value in filtering low-quality submissions, wrangling reviewers, and making editorial decisions when reviewers disagree or are just being assholes (e.g. attempting to hinder a competitor).
http://quantum-journal.org/announcing-quantum/ http://www.nature.com/news/open-journals-that-piggyback-on-a... https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201602/arxiv.cfm