Dan Scott @dbs@scholar.social

When collaborating on writing a document, please:

1. Use track changes / suggested edits / whatever tool gives you the ability to show what your changes are
2. Add comments that explain why you're making a given change, or respond to comments. U know, talk with your collaborators?

Just creating a new version of the document and saying "here's my draft" forces me to generate plain text and diff to see every little change. And I still don't have the rationale.

Completed the first module and saw nothing that couldn't be done with very basic 2010-era HTML/CSS/JavaScript.

Just in time, too, as Flash stops getting updates and distribution at the end of 2020: https://theblog.adobe.com/adobe-flash-update/

Damn it, this online research ethics tutorial requires Flash.

Is requiring the use of proprietary software ethical? Hmm.

It seems like an awful lot of work to go through the process of writing an entire article, including intro, lit review, etc, just to point out that the argument that has been put forward can only be valid if one ignores some of the fundamental capabilities of the technology being discussed.

Some journals allow comments on articles (hey In the Library with the Lead Pipe!), but those probably only help HTML-first (or only) journals...

So... when an article is published in a journal that doesn't publish letters to the editor, how does one rebut assertions in an article that are wrong?

COPE seems to think it's okay (https://publicationethics.org/case/editor-author-own-journal) but the case that's bothering me involves publishing in a journal with a very broad scope: "all aspects of [field]"--definitely not a "circumstance[] where the choice of journals is limited".

There are dozens of journals with a similarly broad scope in the same field.

It also seems like bad form for the editor-in-chief of a double-blind peer-reviewed journal to publish articles they have written in their own journal?

I wish Google Scholar was smart enough to not count citations in an editorial that briefly introduces all of the articles that were published in that issue.

Also, journals that do this and include a complete set of citations at the end of their editorial... we see you.

It certainly appears to be deliberate gaming of the automatic citation counts.

Please do not subject your students to course readings consisting of misaligned images of books you captured with your low-quality phone camera in low-light conditions.

My eyes are bleeding. This does not help my brain process the info.

Signed,
A student

Mostly brainstorming ideas for using this transition to maybe build not just the minimum possible information silo, but collective library infrastructure that enables new possible services.

I have a long way to go before I reach anything tangible or compelling.

MARC -> BIBFRAME/RDA transitions

The library world will be making a transition to a linked data format over the next number of years. The Library of Congress is leading the way with BIBFRAME and RDA is a thing too.

This is going to require a lot of new infrastructure at the core of library systems. Maybe we could take the time to (over-)engineer them with version control + provenance for the metadata. And serve it up with Memento, so that we can query description at different points in time?

Oh wait, those results were when viewing the document in Microsoft Edge (the default PDF viewer in Windows 10, natch).

Acrobat Reader faithfully renders all of the highlights from both Evince and Okular. It's a bit glitchy--I seem to only be able to trigger the annotations for the highlighted text by mousing into the text from the left side--but it works.

And "glitchy" seems to be the nature of PDF annotations anyway.

Per the document properties, the title of this document is "Microsoft Word - FooBarConf - 20140101.docx"

"Hey here's a 150-page document with a table of contents. Oh hell no those ToC entries don't function as links!"

Quick PSA: both Evince and Okular support highlighting and annotating PDF!

But the prof who will be receiving this coursework will be using Acrobat Reader.

Okular highlights and adds annotations that render accurately in Acrobat Reader.

Evince's highlights disappear, and are replaced with a coloured pop-up annotation at the start of the would-be highlighted section.

So for future assignments, Okular it is...