You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is high up on our prioritisation list, but we should define what we mean by this.
I think the reference is to consistent file naming of articles across all journals, and also zip packaging. Although this is out of scope of the true XML, there is a feeling that this standardisation would help in the grand scheme of things.
For instance, what do most publishers do? Some examples would help please!
Currently eLife names the files differently for different end users and a lot of end users are agnostic, where others are not.
EG PMC file naming and packaging requirements are different from HighWire Press. If we could get consistency across hosts and repositories this would probably help publishers.
eLife is currently reviewing our file naming style, so guidance would be useful!
For example, what elements should go in a file name?
Date - if so, which date is this - the accepted date, the published date, the "when an action was completed date" (so it changes for each version of the file) etc
Article number - what is this? Is it one number or does it have dashes and letters as well? Does it come from a submission system or created new for production? Does it change for the final publication post-production-processing
versioning - does the file name change for each version pre-publishing? Does the name change for each version post-publication?
type of article - do people add an article type to the file name>
type of output - does the name change depending on who it is being sent to (ie metadata only to PubMed using PubMed DTD gets a different name from full xml to host/another repository)...
Please input thoughts! I have just jotted this down to open the discussion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Reading your description, maybe a different name would be better for this topic? I also think this could be combined with the issue about documents self-identifying (#10) -- we have a draft recommendation for that, but it hasn't been released. This topic might also include conventions around doctype declarations, if we want to get into that.
So, how about "packaging", or "article-conventions"? I'm not too happy with either of those -- suggestions welcome!
This is high up on our prioritisation list, but we should define what we mean by this.
I think the reference is to consistent file naming of articles across all journals, and also zip packaging. Although this is out of scope of the true XML, there is a feeling that this standardisation would help in the grand scheme of things.
For instance, what do most publishers do? Some examples would help please!
Currently eLife names the files differently for different end users and a lot of end users are agnostic, where others are not.
EG PMC file naming and packaging requirements are different from HighWire Press. If we could get consistency across hosts and repositories this would probably help publishers.
eLife is currently reviewing our file naming style, so guidance would be useful!
For example, what elements should go in a file name?
Date - if so, which date is this - the accepted date, the published date, the "when an action was completed date" (so it changes for each version of the file) etc
Article number - what is this? Is it one number or does it have dashes and letters as well? Does it come from a submission system or created new for production? Does it change for the final publication post-production-processing
versioning - does the file name change for each version pre-publishing? Does the name change for each version post-publication?
type of article - do people add an article type to the file name>
type of output - does the name change depending on who it is being sent to (ie metadata only to PubMed using PubMed DTD gets a different name from full xml to host/another repository)...
Please input thoughts! I have just jotted this down to open the discussion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: