Discussion
In this day and age, "online supplements" are just a symptom of artificial scarcity. Anything that's important for a publication should be *in* the publication. Any info that is not directly in the publication (like data, code, etc.) should all be in one spot - and not in some second-rate location that makes readers jump through hoops.
IMHO, supplements are an anachronistic abomination. There is a special place in hell reserved for journals that make authors do this. 👹
@brembs @steveroyle @sje Fun story on offline supplements. My #rstats {skylight} package (a sky illuminance model) is the c++ refactored version of the work by Janiczek and DeYoung (1987), published in the US Naval observatory circular. It included the FORTRAN code in full in the back, including all verification tables. This made it possible to port the code and verify parity.
We need to remember that _Science_ is *not* a "traditional paper format". _Science_ is a "GlamourMag paper format".
In the old days (pre-1990s), one would write a Science paper as a teaser, but the *real* paper would be in society journal like _J Neurosci_ or _J Neurophys_. These journals had full methods sections, long results sections that worked through the logic, and no supplements.
The system changed when people started getting away with just doing the _Science_ or _Nature_ paper and getting jobs based on those papers (without the "real paper behind them"). To be honest, I don't know why it changed, but it definitely did in the 1990s.
I believe this is when people started using impact factor (which wasn't a thing until _Cell_ convinced journals to fight over it) and "journal value" to judge paper quality.
Shortly thereafter, the semi-glam magazines showed up to try to fill that gap of "high impact factor", but with "sufficiently long data". Which they did by shoving the methods and "supplemental results" into online-only hard-to-find material.
All of this has deeply hurt science.
Good point.
Actually, for printed journals, IMHO, they should have their journalists write short versions. I'd actually subscribe to such a journal - in contrast to the way it is now, where there really is no chance (at least not for me) to understand any paper that is not in my immediate field.
@brembs @steveroyle @sje
Nature does, or at least did, this (very short summaries across disciplines).
Yes, they have/had a short section "News and Views" written by invited scientists. When I was still going to the physical library as a student, that was essentially all I read 😆
That's just for very few, select articles, though. The printed versions of these journals should exclusively be like that, IMHO, and then I'd become interested in subscribing.
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
