From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Achim Gratz Subject: Re: Efficiency of Org v. LaTeX v. Word Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:48:15 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48343) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y4nz5-0005kW-By for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 04:48:32 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y4nz2-0006Fm-67 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 04:48:31 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:51083) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y4nz1-0006Fi-Uu for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 04:48:28 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Y4nz0-0007HD-8y for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:48:26 +0100 Received: from p578f1653.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([87.143.22.83]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:48:26 +0100 Received: from Stromeko by p578f1653.dip0.t-ipconnect.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:48:26 +0100 In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org 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 :-)