Re: [JoPP-Public] Re : Re: Journal Website
Hi Franco, all On 03/14/12, Franco Iacomella <[email protected]> wrote:
El 10/03/12 20:40, Mathieu ONeil escribió:
§ Homepage: This page has a menu-bar at the bottom with the different categories (research, debate, section). We dont really need this any more as we are not grouping articles in this way.
=> I can't modify this as this page appears to be blocked. Can you help? - thanks.
To change that elements you need to go to Lustrel Options > Homepage tabs.
OK, will try - thanks.
§ About: -"Mission statement" should probably be renamed "Submission" as the mission statement part is already on the first page and there is a lot more content to be added which details the kind of submissions (research, debate, etc) which we are interested. -There is a page called "Participate" which should probably be renamed "Mailing lists" like this one: <http://cspp.oekonux.org/about/mailing-list> This could also include a link to the still active jox cspp list.
+1
=> Does everyone agree? I can't modify this either as all these page appear to be blocked. Can you help? - thanks.
Since you are admin now, you should be able to modify it.
OK
§ Research section: As you can see from say <http://cspp.oekonux.org/research/mass-peer-activism/rs1.1-swedish-file-sharing>, research articles have a lot of different files - there is a summary, the pdf of the paper, the pdf of final signals, and pdfs of backrgound material (the original submissions and reviews). The way it was set up in Plone was by having different pages for all these pdfs but it might be easier (if possible) to have them all on one page.
=> What do you think?
I think that we should avoid that much ammount of files. I think that we should have: - pdf, html and epub of each article - pdf, html and epub of each issue
Several points here: -Not sure what "epub" means? -If I understand correctly, you are talking about a system which automatically converts html into pdf? Thanks for confirming this. That sounds great, but we would need to make sure the pdf structure is appropriate, ie looks like what we did for cspp 1 or at least not too different if possible. -Regarding the amount of files: I agree that there are a lot, but since this is an essential part of our opening up of the review process, which has been debated a lot by the group, I'm afraid we need to have all these files available - this only concerns research papers, not debates, comments or reports by the way so not too many articles really. So the question remains - can we fit all these files on one page?
§ Structure: I do need to return to the importance of having a page which gives a reasonably detailed summary of the content of each issue as FM does. Athina on this list and Francesca privately also agreed that this is necessary. So instead of the current content of the "Issue 0" page (which should in fact be the "Editorial") we should have something like:
Ok, I understand your point now. I will try to work on this during next weekend. The final objetive is to have a page template that automatically generates this type of index per issue.
Great, thanks. cheers Mathieu
Best,
-- Franco Iacomella
-- **** Dr Mathieu O'Neil Adjunct Research Fellow Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute College of Arts and Social Science The Australian National University email: mathieu.oneil[at]anu.edu.au web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php
El 17/03/12 13:09, Mathieu ONeil escribió:
-Not sure what "epub" means?
ePub its an open file format used for e-book readers and other devices. I think we need to offer the issues in that format since PDF is a format for printing and not for reading in electronic devices.
-If I understand correctly, you are talking about a system which automatically converts html into pdf? Thanks for confirming this.
Nope.
That sounds great, but we would need to make sure the pdf structure is appropriate, ie looks like what we did for cspp 1 or at least not too different if possible.
The PDF layout used in CSPP it's good for printing but really bad for screen reading. That's why we should provide ePub version or at leat, the OpenDocument version (that can be easily converted to ePub). The CSPP's PDF also lacks of important metadata information, like keywords.
-Regarding the amount of files: I agree that there are a lot, but since this is an essential part of our opening up of the review process, which has been debated a lot by the group, I'm afraid we need to have all these files available - this only concerns research papers, not debates, comments or reports by the way so not too many articles really. So the question remains - can we fit all these files on one page?
I get that, but I don't see any reason to have the reviews of each article published as PDF files. Why not to include them in an article's subpage called "Reviews"? Eventually, we could add a "export to pdf" feature, but I think that the contents should be available in HTML as the first option. Best, -- Franco Iacomella
participants (2)
-
Franco Iacomella -
Mathieu ONeil