RE: [jats-list] How/When do you produce a JATS-XML version of you publication within your publication workflow

Subject: RE: [jats-list] How/When do you produce a JATS-XML version of you publication within your publication workflow
From: Einbrodt Matthias <Matthias.Einbrodt@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:04:12 +0000
Hello Armin,

thank you for your answer.

> as Kewin Hawkins mentions the XML Galley plugin of OJS in his reply to your
> request I just want you to know, that there are problems with this plugin -
> see
>
> http://pkp.sfu.ca/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6780
>
> Currently XML Galley does not work if you use more than one galley format
> eg XHTML + PDF as Alec Smelcher (PKP) states here:

[Einbrodt Matthias]
It means that If I want to offer our reader an (X)Html and PDF Version of the
article I can't use this plugin right?

> Besides that - starting this year we at PsychOpen (psychopen.eu) publish
> open access psychology journals - currently 3 active journals and 2 in
> preparation - using an XML workflow. We use eXtyles to produce the XML
> (but as you probably know the eXtyles software will cost you several
> thousand dollars). We are quite content with eXtyles but their still remain
> some manually editing of the resulting XML files to adapt it to our needs.

[Einbrodt Matthias]
I would have some follow up question regarding that - I hope I'm not too pushy
here.

(1) Which XML Format are you using?

(2) How much time does it take to prepare/produce the XML of one article (give
or take) - including the eXtyles phase and the additional manual editing.

(3) In which output formats do you produce the articles (Html, PDF or both)?
And did you rely on already existing XSLT/XSL:FO transformation or have you
developed them entirely new?

> of course there might be much(!) work to do for copyediting the original
doc
> files (if, for example, references are faulty or tables have not the right
> format). This depends very much on the quality of the submissions (and the
> involvement of the editors in
> copyediting) .

[Einbrodt Matthias]
That is true. But I think/hope this is more an organizational issue. Meaning
the better the author support (in terms of documentation, direct help etc.)
the better the quality of a doc-file a copy-editor has to deal with ... or am
I on the wrong or at least a too idealistic track here? :-)

Best Regards and thanks again, Matthias

Current Thread