Post #3096703
2025-09-03 12:47 UTC
@brembs@mastodon.social That’s all nice and sweet, but how can we make sure this abomination of “typesetting” employed on the platform does not become the new norm for how we publish and read all our scholarship? (I know that there are bigger concerns and that his should probably not be the decisive factor. But I also honestly believe that there is an aesthetic aspect driving scholar’s decisions about where to publish.)
Replies (3)
-
@ArneBab@rollenspiel.social 2025-09-03 13:19
@felwert@fedihum.org I’d guess a start would be to ask to join them. @brembs@mastodon.social
-
@brembs@mastodon.social 2025-09-03 13:33
@felwert@fedihum.org I think their blurb on their new URL gives it away: "ORE 2.0 is the vision to expand ORE to a European Diamond Open Access platform with open peer-review and operated by the academic community." If the academic community operates it, we decide it: https://www.ore.eu/
-
@christof@fedihum.org 2025-09-03 13:50
@felwert@fedihum.org @brembs@mastodon.social The platform is the one developed for/by F1000, where features, layout and PDF files look similar. But I am sure the PDF and HTML templates can be tweaked and improved. (I agree that this is definitely a factor for acceptance of a journal... silly as it might seem.)