7 reasons why ShareLaTeX works really well to write in LaTeX collaboratively

A few months ago I published a manuscript on the BioRxiv and then PNAS with 5 coauthors. Four of us used ShareLaTeX to collaboratively write the paper. It worked really well. Here are eight reasons why I like ShareLaTeX:

1. No need to think about a LaTeX editor or any packages on your computer. All work is done online. Great for LaTeX newbies.

2. ShareLaTeX has all the benefits of LaTeX. It is LaTeX, just online. You’ll get the beautiful LaTeX lay-out, and it’s perfect for mathematical equations.

3. No worries about whether you are working on the latest version of the file, you always are, because all work is done on the ShareLaTeX servers. Great for collaborations across timezones.

4. It’s very easy to see what edits your colleagues made. Much more elegant than “track changes” in Word. You can reverse the changes.

5. No need to worry about who else is editing the file, you can work on the same file at the same time!

6. If you need to talk while you’re working on your manuscript, the chat option works too!

7. When you’re done, or need to send a version of the manuscript to someone else, it’s easy to download the entire project (including bib files and figures) to your computer or just the PDF, which is usually enough.

On my wishlist: ShareMathematica

The people from ShareLaTeX now also have an R and Python editor online DataJoy. I haven’t tried it yet, but it could be very useful!

In addition, I hope that the the men and women at ShareLaTeX will think about creating ShareMathematica. For the Mathematica files we used in our project, we ran into version problems occasionally, so that Alison had to send us emails saying: “Please, make sure you use version 8 of the Mathematica file in the DropBox folder!!!” I hope that next time we collaborate, we don’t need to worry about that anymore.

Finally, I wish there was a button that would send our manuscript directly to the ArXiv or the BioRxiv, when we are ready to do so (and remove all the comments before doing so).

Anyways, kudos to the ShareLaTeX team. You made my life a little easier!

(I have no connections to ShareLaTeX, except that I’m a customer)

Thoughts on arXiv and journals

One of the best things about working at Stanford is having lunch outside with my colleagues almost every day. Last Friday it was fairly cold (70 degrees orso, 20°C) but we are a tough bunch and we were sitting outside.

One of the newer people in the lab asked to the others: “do you publish your manuscripts on the arXiv?” What followed was a brief discussion of the pros and cons of publishing on the arXiv before a paper is published in a journal. Here is my summary.

Pros and cons of publishing on the arXiv

Pros

1. Science goes faster when we share our results faster.

2. Published papers will be better if more people can give feedback early on.

3. There is some evidence (though not from a randomized trial) that papers get cited more when they are first published on the arXiv.

4. Getting your paper “out there” before it is accepted by a journal takes away some of the stress of getting the paper accepted by a journal. Others can already see what you’ve done, and an arXiv-ed paper looks much better on your CV than “in preparation.”

5. In quantitative biology, the arXiv is cool and you will look like a modern 21st century scientist if you publish on the arXiv. But don’t try to impress a physicist with your new-found arXiv-fondness, because they already used the arXiv before most current graduate students were born. If you go for hip, consider publishing your preprint on Figshare, because they allow you to keep track of traffic, and PeerJ Preprints is another new option.

6. If you’re in evolutionary biology, you can benefit from exposure on Haldane’s Sieve if you publish on arXiv (or another preprint server).

Cons

1. The paper may still change a lot and you cannot remove the arXiv-ed version (though you can add a newer version, and I think it is unlikely that anyone looks at an old version).

2. Some journals don’t like to publish arXiv-ed papers, see this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals_by_preprint_policy

3. If many people read the arXiv-ed version, they may not bother reading the improved journal-version.

Honestly, I am not too convinced of these cons.

So should do away with publishing in peer-reviewed journals?

I don’t think so. Despite everything that is wrong with journals, I think they are very useful.
Ask yourself: when was the last time you really took the time to read through a paper by someone you didn’t know?
Right, I think that may have been when you were reviewing a paper! And chances are that you were reviewing that paper because an editor asked you. There is not yet a system – outside of journals – that makes sure that a paper gets read & scrutinized by at least a few people. When I tried to publish a somewhat controversial paper on HIV last year, I was annoyed with the peer review system, because I felt it was unfair to a newby in the field. But without the review system, chances are that my paper would have been ignored entirely. If it wasn’t for journals, how would a person who is not yet known in the field get the attention of the community?

Editors are important hubs in our scientific community

Of course, there are reviewers who do not take their task seriously, and there are scientists who do take time to read papers by unknown scientists even if they are not reviewing, but I bet that both are rather small minorities. I like to review papers, I am happy that my papers get reviewed, and I think that the editors who organize it all are important hubs in our scientific community. We shouldn’t do away with that!

New video on slavemaking ants

As I announced a few weeks ago, I have been working on a new video on my work on slavemaking ants. It is now ready and online!

In this video, we talk about our research on slavemaking ants and their hosts (slaves). The slavemakers are of one species (P. americanus) and the hosts of another species (T. longispinosus). Host ants can be captured by the slavemaker ants, and these captured ants (slaves) normally work for the slavemaker queen. But recently, it was found that they sometimes kill slavemakers (Achenbach and Foitzik 2009 and Pamminger et al. 2013). It is unclear why the slaves do this, because they probably cannot reproduce.

The video is based on the paper: “Oh sister, where art thou? Indirect fitness benefit could maintain a host defense trait” by Tobias Pamminger, Susanne Foitzik, Dirk Metzler and myself, which can be found here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0790. Earlier, I wrote a blog-post about this paper for Haldane’s Sieve.

Susanne Foitzik, who is a professor in Mainz (and previously in Munich) and her students and colleagues have been working on this slavemaker-host system for many years. Another video of our work is here: Raiders from the sky.

The music for the video was taken from the Free Music Archive.