Why PDF files open in a small window inside the webpage?

[Ojser]

Hi,

I'm just wondering why a pdf file opens in the webpage in a small window, which needs to be manually maximized to see its content?
Is this an OJS issue or browser-related issue? Or PDF configuration issue?
I don't have this symptom when opening PDF files outside of OJS.
Is there any way to fix it and directly open the pdf file as a whole page, not as a small page? ?

Thank you

Regards,

[ramon]

Hello Ojser,

This is how OJS works by design now. It displays the PDF within the page, allowing the Reading Tools to be better integrated with PDF format.
I would suggest though, if possible, to enable some sort of configuration within the galleys so we can choose to open in a Modal Box (Lightbox effect) for example. Colorbox is actually a pretty easy to use JQuery library, which could be added to OxS, in general.

Joomla's JCE Editor (which uses TinyMCE as WYSIWYG editor) also has a MediaBox plugin that can add lightbox effect to any type of link in the content (mostly used for simple image galleries...).

I would still recommend publishing in the Web's standard and original format: HTML.
Not only it is THE standard format, it allows for higher interactivity (links, pop-ups, javascript/Ajax/JQuery), easier ways to index and search (microformats, RDF, HTML 5, internal and automatic OJS indexing without needing external server tools).

As editors, people should start abolishing proprietary formats that make it difficult for data integration.
PDF is NOT an open format (although there are PDF/A and PDF/X formats), but they require heavier software for indexing.
HTML can be easily scraped, updated, formatted and published (as long as you know CSS, Javascript, JQuery, all open and free WEB technologies), with high quality multimedia (images, image galleries, video, audio, metadata) embedded into it.

We need to stop trying to recreate the printed world on the Web, and start using the Web as it should....

[Ojser]

Hello Ramon.

I don't think PDF format will disappear in the near future!
The PDF format is now available in OJS, so why not to make it as standard as possible?
PDF format presents some facilities and easiness over HTML, especially for print purposes. HTML, on other hand, doesn't, or only for experts, which is not the case of all people.
If OJS was only web-publishing oriented, it then should present the easiness of web-publishing; It should facilitate the publishing process, which is, in my mind, a little bit tedious (at least now):
There are many forced steps, rounds and roles (reviewing rounds, copy editing rounds, uploading, re-uploading, editing, assignment, proofreading,...etc). This is laborious and doesn't fit with the more and more simplified online publishing process.
Even as an admin, we should click on all these steps to be able to publish an article (even for test purposes).
I'm a little bit frustrated from the steps number before publishing an article, and I don't' know what are the big differences between copyediting, editing, profreading, and reviewing!
Why not to merge all these steps in one and unique step, called simply "reviewing" ? This will make OJS much more easier, comprising only 3 steps:
- Upload an article (or send it to a reviewer)
- Reviewing (imply proofreading, corrections and so on)
- Publish or reject!
The remaining steps are a little bit confusing.
I don't know how professional publishers work, but I think there is a tendency even not to use the classical journal menu (issue, volume, number, ..etc), just DOI (for online publishing) and the year !

This is just to say that OJS could be simplified in many other ways, rather than in pleading for HTML advantages to justify non-optimized PDF format.
In short, OJS offers the possibility to publish in PDF format, why not to make this format as standard as possible, regardless the advantages/disadvantages of PDF and HTML formats?

On other hand, does HTML format offer better indexing or search engine output than PDF?


Regards,

[ramon]

Hello Ojser,

I won't go over the greater advantages of "publishing" as HTML formats.
The basic one is that is FREE, with simple CSS rules you can make an HTML for PRINT (it may be complicated to generate multiple columns for a "standard" print journal, but, to me, these are are - and should be - a dying species. I mean, who prints to paper anyway? I'm kidding here...), as well as for multiple media environments using media queries and specific CSS rules or files for each format you want (even using high quality images, besides all the multimedia possible).

HTML is far more easier to index, search, as well as to integrate with newest technologies (RDF, HTML5, and so on).

Now, as to OJS's editorial process: that IS and SHOULD BE the standard process for a quality scholarly journal. Scholarly, scientific and academic journals and articles only have "validity" and quality if peer-reviewed. No one has found another process that is as democratic and "secure" (mostly to avoid political, biased publishing, but also for other security reasons). Peer-review is THE BOTTLENECK of scholarly publications, but skipping the step is not the solution, in my opinion. It may be due to a lack of available reviewers or poor "payback" received for a task that has become more complex over time. Charging for it doesn't seem to solve the problem either.

Now, to go back to OJS, as admin/JM/Editor, if you also have the Author role, you can skip most of the steps with the Quick Submit button (I assume it's still available... I hardly use it in testing anyway, so it goes almost forgotten). If you have documents that are "print"-ready, all you need to do is add the required metadata and use the quick submit. Then, as editor, choose the issue where you want to publish the document.

Role-based systems tend to be built this way, adding a bit of complexity and getting used to, to avoid possible security breaches.

I don't mean by all this that you are wrong. Any software has room for improvement and all criticism is welcome.
However, it is difficult to please Greeks and Trojans alike.
And there are some decisions that are difficult to make or may require "going back to formula", to implement.

[Ojser]

I'm sorry to come back to this old post but it is an important issue as I'm still encountering problems with OJS.

I mean, who prints to paper anyway?

Nobody should print now, I agree with you!
But I feel that OJS works, and intended, for the old print publishing model.
All its steps suit the print publishing, much more than simplified web publishing.
If there was only an ecological reason not to publish in paper, it would be enough not to print!

Now, as to OJS's editorial process: that IS and SHOULD BE the standard process for a quality scholarly journal. Scholarly, scientific and academic journals and articles only have "validity" and quality if peer-reviewed. No one has found another process that is as democratic and "secure" (mostly to avoid political, biased publishing, but also for other security reasons). Peer-review is THE BOTTLENECK of scholarly publications, but skipping the step is not the solution, in my opinion.

I wasn't talking about peer-review process but about the "complexity" of steps and tasks in OJS.
Peer-review process could be much more simplified to take advantage of the web publishing facility.
In my mind, no need to copyeditor, section editor, layout editor and so on...! Just Editor would suffice! Even editor could be off! The publisher himself could be the editor!
Publishing is based on three elements:
-author, who submits,
-reviewer, who review, critics, correct, recommend to author,...etc
-and the publisher who publish using a template or layout he chose! But with the HTML and PDF formats, there is no much need to layouts!
If journal print is needed, all pdf files could be added to one single file with a cover image and pasta, the print journal is made!
The roles should be simplified.
It is the reviewer role to correct or ask the author to correct his paper on his own.
That said, OJS could be much easier than now, and I hope that it will be so soon, in next upgrades!
It could be less cumbersome than now by eliminating the few extra-paper-intended processes and reducing the step number to the minimum without compromising the peer-review process.
Alternatively, a light version of OJS intended only for simple peer-reviewed web publishing would be much appreciated!
The more steps in the soft, the more time consuming and the more problems in the publishing process and tasks!
"Beauty in the simplicity, isn't it"?

[ramon]

Hello Ojser,

I totally agree with you.
OJS WAS based on the print model, as it was the one available. It had to start somewhere.
And OJS allows you to not use any of those "roles".
However, if a journal needs them, they are there.
As for the steps, I agree that some are a bit beaurocratic, mainly to keep track of things.

But, if you care about quality AND have the resources, you SHOULD have all those people, because they are specialists at what they do.
No one will create a better layout for multiple media formats than a specialist, no matter what tool you use, because each has its little secrets.
For example, I'm tired of seeing people publishing to PDF because they are not able to create an HTML article with good an clean code, valid and error free, mostly because they use automatic tools, or simply export from whatever editor they use to HTML. Unfortunately, good HTML needs to be tweaked, formatted, and takes time, care and patience until you reach a level you are satisfied with.
If you use the Layout editor, that creates the template for this article, then, it would be easier to create the article, but would still need the knowledge to write the HTML.

If the articles were written on the Web, NOW THAT would be the most advanced scenario, where we would be able to use Zoho or Google Docs types of tools, to share, review, edit only and then submit for publishing in a real click.
But we are not too close to that yet.. baby steps need to be taken first.

Nonetheless, let me assure you hat the PKP team is working hard and the process is being "visually" simplified, based on the new OMP model.
The PKP Team is always paying attention to these and other discussions about the publishing world, but some decisions need to be made based on numbers (meaning the vast majority need a specific feature), not necessarily just a good idea. In Brazil, for example, most editors don't fully use OJS's features, many still use outside processes (even for review), but they don't take the initiative to actually learn what the software can or cannot do, request improvements (by specifying what that improvement is, how it should work, etc, etc)... With quality data like this, it's easier to make decisions.
Sometimes, it is hard to change culture, sometimes the technology doesn't allow us to improve unless we change too many things, which costs more...

Anyway, I had a chance to test OMP and the process has become more mature, dynamic and taking advantage of the Web.
I can't wait for them to be ported to OCS and OJS, although it may take a while...

_______________________________
Ramón Martins Sodoma da Fonseca
Analista em C&T
Coordenação de Tecnologias de Informação
Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia - IBICT
Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia - MCT

[Ojser]

Hello Ojser,

And OJS allows you to not use any of those "roles".
However, if a journal needs them, they are there.

Yes, this might be a good option, indeed. But I don't see how to deactivate them. Making OJS multipurpose is a good choice to answer professional and less professional requirements.
Same thing for journals; I would like to hide a journal rather than to remove it completely from the journal list but I don't see if such an option is possible! Sometimes we create a journal but it is not ready to go online (e.g needs more optimization), it is better to hide it in the midway, till you make its final format, than to remove it and restart once again.

For the rest, I also agree with you.
It is hard to change culture. But, surprisingly cultures are changing so fast in more than a way, in more than a domain.
Personally, I see that review process as simple as follow: a document file sent to the reviewer who will correct it and comment it, and say if it could be publish as is or it needs further work, corrections...etc. He will resend it to the publisher who will make the corresponding PDF file and upload it to the site!
In other word, simplified review should, in my opinion, looks like the moderated posts and comments on the web where moderators approve, and can modify, posts and publish them! The same could be done for the publishing process in term of simplicity and facility.
The publisher (and eventually his team) will make the necessary work of the correction and the layout he wishes before publishing the article.
One nice option in OJS says (I think it is in the submission checklist): "Tables and figures should be inserted in the text at their relevant places". This nearly makes the a big part of the work, as once the figures and tables are placed in their respective point, the layout is done and the document is ready to publish!
I, of course, see that any change or modification in OJS would need a huge task and time. I'm just talking about my impression as a beginner user of OJS.
I hope that OMP will be much more easy, intuitive and polyvalent! Then, I'm wondering if we can use it to publish annual journal or volumes of a journal in OJS as a book in OMP!
I mean using OMP instead of OJS to publish an annual journal or volumes of a journal in one issue, to take advantage of the simplicity of OMP and its characteristics! I'd like to replace ojs by omp, if it is possible!
Hopefully and Strongly OMP!

[elhay]

HTML is unsuitable for our journal in which particular and sometimes unusual fonts are required. We therefore HAD to go with PDF as the only option we know we about where fonts can be embedded.

[elhay]

To return to the something related to the original question posed in this thread: One of the difficulties our readers face is that when a link in a PDF (being viewed in the small OJS window) is followed the return to the PDF always goes back to the top of the PDF file. Is there a way that OJS can remember the position in the PDF and return to that after visiting a link outside the PDF?

[asmecher]

Hi elhay,

Unfortunately we have very little control over how PDFs behave, since they're embedded using plugins external to the browser. For example, it's not possible for us to direct the plugin to open links in a new window, or to instruct it where in the PDF file the user should be directed. There are other PDF embedding options in new releases of OJS, though -- see the Zoho Viewer and Google Viewer plugins (in the Generic plugin category, available from Journal Management > System Plugins). You might have better luck with these.

Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team

[ramon]

Hello elhay,

HTML is unsuitable for our journal in which particular and sometimes unusual fonts are required. We therefore HAD to go with PDF as the only option we know we about where fonts can be embedded.

Your affirmation is not entirely true.
With the latest CSS you can add any "web" fonts you desire.
All you need is to convert whatever TrueType or other font format to the required web font formats (example 1, example 2).
You can even embed true type fonts to HTML documents.

_______________________________
Ramón Martins Sodoma da Fonseca
Analista em C&T
Coordenação de Tecnologias de Informação
Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia - IBICT
Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia - MCT

[springday]

Hi Ramon and elhay,

embedding fonts in HTML is not a technical problem anymore, that's true. But often it can be a licencing issue. If the fonts used are not open source and cost some licence fee, it makes a big difference if you licence a font to be used in a pdf or on a website. The background of that is: You can embed a font in a PDF in such a way that it cannot be extracted and reused. But you cannot embed a font in a website while at the same time preventing it to be extracted and reused. This is the reason why buying a font licence for the web is much more expensive than buying a font licence for usage in PDF.

If the fonts required are not available in open source variants, you need a big purse or you're out of luck...

Regards,
Kai