From: Achim Gratz <Stromeko@Nexgo.DE>
To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:48:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m7lv8v$ftk$1@ger.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m2h9wi6nas.fsf@gmail.com>
Am 26.12.2014 um 23:47 schrieb Ken Mankoff:
> People here might be interested in a publication from [2014-12-19 Fri]
> available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115069
>
> Title: An Efficiency Comparison of Document Preparation Systems Used
> in Academic Research and Development
>
> Summary: Word users are more efficient and have less errors than even
> experienced LaTeX users.
The way researcher efficiency is defined in that "study" completely
misses the purpose of scientific publishing and it goes downhill from
there. The statistics are pseudo-scientific smokes and mirrors, no
control groups, no normalization and not a single hint of why it should
be acceptable to use normal distributions for something that clearly
isn't normally distributed other than the obvious convenience of drawing
wild conclusions from a small sample size.
I'm still not sure if this isn't an elaborate joke, but I'm afraid not.
> Someone here should repeat experiment and add Org into the mix, perhaps
> Org -> ODT and/or Org -> LaTeX and see if it helps or hurts. I assume
> Org would trump LaTeX, but would Org -> ODT or Org -> X -> DOCX (via
> pandoc) beat straight Word?
Repeating a deeply flawed "study" that seems designed to support some
pre-conceived notion or preference of the authors isn't going to produce
any new insights and I'm quite certain that there is better research
into the differences of WYSIWIG vs. non-WYSIWIG publication systems
and/or researcher efficiency. If a reasearcher is nothing more than a
typist that needs to produce pages of texts, tables and equations in a
prescribed format in the least amount of time motivated by a monetary
prize, we wouldn't need researchers at all. That would incidentally
save much more money than having them all switch from LaTeX to Word, so
let's stop funding research.
--
Achim.
(on the road :-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-27 9:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-26 22:47 Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word Ken Mankoff
2014-12-26 23:36 ` Thomas S. Dye
2014-12-27 2:21 ` briangpowell .
2014-12-27 14:36 ` Eric S Fraga
2014-12-27 3:26 ` Christopher W. Ryan
2014-12-28 22:45 ` Bob Newell
2014-12-27 4:27 ` Nick Dokos
2014-12-27 9:06 ` Peter Neilson
2014-12-27 14:38 ` Eric S Fraga
2014-12-27 9:48 ` Achim Gratz [this message]
2014-12-27 10:05 ` Paul Rudin
2014-12-27 10:36 ` M
2014-12-27 11:36 ` Fabrice Popineau
2014-12-28 22:43 ` Pascal Fleury
2014-12-31 18:19 ` Paul Rudin
2014-12-27 13:37 ` Daniele Pizzolli
2014-12-28 21:40 ` Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word ---LOOK AT THE DATA! Christophe Pouzat
2014-12-29 19:47 ` Thomas S. Dye
2014-12-31 16:59 ` Colin Baxter
2015-01-04 20:38 ` Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word John Kitchin
2015-01-04 21:15 ` Andreas Leha
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='m7lv8v$ftk$1@ger.gmane.org' \
--to=stromeko@nexgo.de \
--cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).