CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

July 2008

CONFOCALMICROSCOPY@LISTS.UMN.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Christophe Leterrier <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 1 Jul 2008 19:16:23 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (17 lines)
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

> That's fine.  But that's not how most journals work right now, as far as
> I know, and we are talking about how it works now.  If, five or ten
> years from now, paper journals are no longer the standard, then the
> limitations won't exist.  As long as they do, however, they do.
>
> billo
>

This is true, however it is not uncommon to see 40-60 pages
supplementary data in Science or Nature papers nowadays. Furthermore,
as Larry pointed out, nothing keeps you today from hosting your 140
pages pdf by yourself (your university, your lab...) and link to it in
your article, as a web link only takes half a line in a paper !

ATOM RSS1 RSS2