Scholarly publishing in Markdown: a thought experiment, and review of Editorially

1466

Posted by Rob Walsh, community karma 1466

In this blog post over at our journal, "Innovations in Scholarly Publishing" I gave an example how using tools like Editorially could speed up the copyediting and typesetting process between authors of articles and the journals that publish them.

What do you think of Editorially? Would you as an author or journal editor be excited about using this type of collaborative tool? Have you seen an article languish to be copyedited and typeset and envision a way that a tool like this could help?

about 11 years ago

Tags: publishing, html, editorially, typesetting, copyediting, markdown

1 Comment

▲

Arindam Basu, community karma 47

This is good. Reminded me of Draft (http://www.draftin.com). Similar idea. For that matter, you can use Google Docs to get the same issue, with references, etc if you are into collaborative academic writing in a secure environment.

about 11 years ago

I really like Draft as well. I think that Editorially has built on its foundations in an interesting way. I'm actually not a big fan of Google Docs. I think the "formatting" gets in the way too much. I've found that it's very easy for me to get into weird states regarding font sizes, list-numbering, and the like. In the beginning I thought that real-time collaboration was the holy grail, but now I find that I want to just work with someone to edit a document, see the differences, and be able to post it on the web. Cutting and pasting things to and from Google Docs usually becomes a nightmare for me. Maybe I'm just unlucky :)

Rob Walsh – about 11 years ago

Trending conversations

1 Comment