Timeline for Making latex sourcefiles publicly available by default
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 20, 2015 at 10:05 | vote | accept | FrankMert | ||
| Jun 18, 2015 at 21:22 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackAcademia/status/611645252454195201 | ||
| Jun 18, 2015 at 13:32 | comment | added | FrankMert | You're mainly talking about the public in-progress git here? Agreed. Arxiving could make it easier to be plagiarised, but also then easier to settle the plagiarism dispute as your preprint is out there. | |
| Jun 18, 2015 at 12:29 | comment | added | Willie Wong | Are you sure you want your works-in-progress visible by all? Open science is good in principle, but sadly there is a good argument for keeping things you are currently working on somewhat private. | |
| Jun 18, 2015 at 11:50 | answer | added | jakebeal | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 18, 2015 at 11:39 | answer | added | David Ketcheson | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 18, 2015 at 11:36 | answer | added | Moriarty | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 18, 2015 at 11:23 | comment | added | FrankMert | I'm afraid, I must have missed that. So you can use a private repo, wrap up your arxiv preprint, maybe tag the corresponding commit, accompany it by it's source files, graphics etc and upload it to arxiv? Yes, then access to the full github repo is lapsed. Then pdf+latex sourcefiles+graphics are available on arxiv -- and this shouldn't generally be a problem for any publisher, so no need to know beforehand where you're going to submit your work to? | |
| Jun 18, 2015 at 11:19 | comment | added | Alexandros | @FrankMert Yes, but arxiv allows to download the src files. What more you want? | |
| Jun 18, 2015 at 11:18 | comment | added | FrankMert | Yes, a lot of people do it. If it is private there shouldn't be any problems. Some do it even public (perhaps unknowingly that so far only really arxiv has the special standing as tolerated preprint arxiv). But the intention would be to in addition to the compiled preprint make the source code for it publicly available -- why? It is more transparent, easier for others to reuse/extend -- e.g. if you have complex tikz plots, derivations or the like in there. Hence, a private repo is not really an option. The question is about the standing of public gitrepos compared to compiled files on arxiv. | |
| Jun 18, 2015 at 11:16 | comment | added | Dmitry Savostyanov | Consider using private repos, for example on bitbucket. | |
| Jun 18, 2015 at 11:15 | comment | added | Alexandros | I cannot really understand your question. You can put your tex src files on git and it has advantages (lot of us do it already). But why must this repo be public? If you want to put tex src files publicly (which is not always optimal, since you may have commented out many text parts that may be used in future versions), why use the same template used by the journal? Also, arxiv allows to publicly share tex src files? Why use git for that? | |
| Jun 18, 2015 at 11:10 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 18, 2015 at 11:24 | |||||
| Jun 18, 2015 at 11:08 | history | asked | FrankMert | CC BY-SA 3.0 |