Just a little bit and only on my own. I think it integrates OK with microsoft word and its apple counterpart. Not a well with the libre or openoffice version so you have to upload manually when you want to push but it can definitely help with some things.
-
-
The pricing system isn’t very well suited to academia, in which you randomly work with different people on manuscripts. A cost per user system only works well for labs that don’t really collaborate and tend to have the same author lists. Still want to give it a shot
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dsquintana @RemiGau
I can't tell you how to deal with your coauthors, but a realistic solution both for git and for keeping backups easily regardless of version control is for all authors to convert to using plain text. But I am lucky all my coauthors use .tex — I have lost track of what I might do
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
if they didn't because I haven't had to face that... My guess is I would offer to teach them LaTeX or at least how to edit on
@overleaf (wherein I would use it only as a git repo and they would use it on the website).3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @dsquintana and
This being said, I am working ATM on a manuscript with more authors that is on
@overleaf and where all of us are using the GUI because we don't do turn-based edits as I am used to, so I use the GUI (it's still versioned on git ofc).1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @dsquintana and
I prefer more clear turn-based edits to avoid conflict (which is typically what most ppl do regardless, I think?) — but on git with LaTeX it's easy to do concurrent edits if you have separate files for different part of the manuscript (the power LaTeX's input command)!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @dsquintana and
Also to be clear I mean both "conflict" (the interpersonal kind, because I feel concurrent edits are more likely to bring about confusion if not discussed first at least) and "conflicts" when you merge on git.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @dsquintana and
So as with any technology it's a mix of what the user wants and what can be done with the technology. Plain text is undoubtedly the way forward if you want clear and clean git history. A GUI on top of that is what many users want, which is very possible in the case of
@overleaf.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @dsquintana and
The reason I don't mention offline GUIs, of which there are a great many and of which some are excellent is because, even though that is how I work, most people (newbies) can't (yet) deal with the overhead of local compilation.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @dsquintana and
Caspar Addyman 🌈 Retweeted Noam Ross
Rmarkdown is plaintext and works quite well for writing these days too. Supports latex equations and With pandoc it exports nicely to word and pdf. Can even share trackable word versions toohttps://twitter.com/noamross/status/1127273301443850240?s=19 …
Caspar Addyman 🌈 added,
Noam Ross @noamrossJust pushed up {redoc}, a#rstats
for *reversible* reproducible documents. redoc() your .Rmd, edit in Word, dedoc() it back. Built-in diffing, Critic Markup/track changes support, & RStudio plugins! https://noamross.github.io/redoc . Feedback and contributions welcome!
#rstatsnyc pic.twitter.com/xOXNYO5CgQ1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
The biggest problem with this last time I checked is that pandoc can't deal with figures and their captions in Word IIRC. Also how do you get it into journal .tex (or otherwise) templates?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.