Недовольство без ругани
Jun. 17th, 2013 02:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
noyauПод катом приведен текст письма, которое крайне вежливый, но очень рассерженный профессор отправил в редакцию журнала, увидев кончательный вариант статьи на сайте (тег не вполне подходит, но так уж сложилось, что под ним я собираю письма, которые мне чем-то приглянулись).
Dear ...,
My attention was just drawn to the fact that the change you made (see email below) in the proofs was far from satisfactory, see the attached pdf. As I had emphasized (see below), (d) is not a footnote or superscript, it is part of the well-known Pople basis set, see e.g. the caption to Fig. 1. So it should read 6-311+G(d), not 6-311+G^(d). There must be many hundreds of articles in Molecular Physics which use this notation, so I'm a bit disappointed about the performance of the technical editing, here. It does not make things better that the late Sir John Pople (Nobel laureate, Knight Commander of the British Empire, who coined this notation) contributed the very first paper in Molecular Physics back in 1958, Volume 1 on page 3 (see e.g. the special issue dedicated to him in 1997).
Molecular Physics used to have the fame of having the best formula typesetting in our community. Now its seems to have just a poor price-performance ratio, see www.journalprices.com . All this is not fully encouraging in terms of my future contributions to this journal.
Sorry for being so explicit, but I do hope you can avoid this kind of mistake in future work.
Regards
Dear ...,
My attention was just drawn to the fact that the change you made (see email below) in the proofs was far from satisfactory, see the attached pdf. As I had emphasized (see below), (d) is not a footnote or superscript, it is part of the well-known Pople basis set, see e.g. the caption to Fig. 1. So it should read 6-311+G(d), not 6-311+G^(d). There must be many hundreds of articles in Molecular Physics which use this notation, so I'm a bit disappointed about the performance of the technical editing, here. It does not make things better that the late Sir John Pople (Nobel laureate, Knight Commander of the British Empire, who coined this notation) contributed the very first paper in Molecular Physics back in 1958, Volume 1 on page 3 (see e.g. the special issue dedicated to him in 1997).
Molecular Physics used to have the fame of having the best formula typesetting in our community. Now its seems to have just a poor price-performance ratio, see www.journalprices.com . All this is not fully encouraging in terms of my future contributions to this journal.
Sorry for being so explicit, but I do hope you can avoid this kind of mistake in future work.
Regards
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-06-17 12:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-17 12:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-17 12:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-17 12:56 pm (UTC)Тут действительно технический редактор напахал изрядно. Это было не единственное место. Просто уж про Поппла мне пассаж понравился. Статья громадная (жаль, не моя :-), и любые опечатки портят читаемость. И реально после вычитки было очень четко написано что и как исправить.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-18 01:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-18 01:30 pm (UTC)Причем тех. редактор сначала написал эту несчастную d как нижний индекс, а после правки - как верхний. А ощущения от таких опечаток как от "Масква" - читатель сразу подозревает автора в неточностях и непонимании предмета.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-18 01:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-18 01:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-23 06:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-24 08:14 pm (UTC)