I was wondering if there are any journals that do not use 'doc' or any other similar file formats in the review process
In my experience I have used 'track changes' in some document editor to communicate with reviewers
I remember finding it strange at first that the academics/alchemists in their 'high tower' used such file formats. Had some snobby feeling that they should be above it. In the distance academics were graybeards that spoke Latin and used latex for everything. Now up close, as always, they are just regular people (the distance makes mountains blue and people great is a saying somewhere).
Jokes aside, I would like to know if there are any journals that refuse to use the 'doc/odt...' file formats. Some have latex as an alternative but then convert everything to 'doc' when the review process begins. Is there anywhere discussions or articles where this has been addressed (if there is any issue, not sure if there is)?
Mostly interested in the biological fields
My question is:
What journals do not use 'track changes' in the review process? It seems like in the end they all ditch the response letter and want 'track changes'. It would be nice for once to stick to the original Latex file but if it is not possible then so be it. Just thinking out loud (sorry, but seemed like a legitimate question, I'll delete if this is just some impulsive brew).