Anna's recent post about her struggles with Pubmed searches reminded me that there is still a lot that could and should be done to improve the paper (or thesis) writing process. This is my personal list of major annoyances:
Interestingly, the way we do paper writing and paper submission has changed a lot between ca. 1985 and 1995. Basically the transition from analog to digital. Who still remembers Index Medicus, Current Contents, copying papers in the library, Letraset for figure numbering, mailing hard copies of manuscripts around, etc.?
But what has changed in the last 10-15 years? Probably not that much. Web 2.0 is an overused term, but there is so much potential for improvement in the area of manuscript writing. We should not be satisfied with what Pubmed, Endnote, Microsoft Word, etc. offer today. That is why I don't understand some of the discussion surrounding Anna's blog post, basically advising her to just sit down and learn her Pubmed stuff.
If that is not enough for you, some people have already taken the next step: Web 3.0 and health librarians: an introduction.
My Paper Writing Dream Machine 1.0
I’ve written a similar post before, put I would like to talk about some of the features that I would like to see in an ideal paper writing application.Intelligent FormattingContent and formatting should be separated from each other. ...
Please keep it simple: citations, links and references
In my last post I wrote about the importance of keeping things simple in scholarly publishing, today I want to go into more detail with one example: citations in scholarly documents.Citations are an essential part of scholarly documents, ...
Citations are links, so where is the problem?
Citations are a fundamental concept of scholarly works. Unfortunately they are also difficult to do. Traditional writing tools such as Microsoft Word can’t really handle them in a way that is appropriate for a scientific manuscript, ...