WOW!!! CONGRATULATIONS @Orodruin !!!!
Is there any way to buy it in electronic format? I try not to buy real books anymore, since otherwise I'd have no space in my house to live.
Not that I am aware of. At least not at the present time.
On the Amazon page for your book, it doesn't seem to offer the "Look Inside" feature?
I hope that's not intentional, and that this feature will be enabled in the near future. (I almost never buy books any more unless I can "look inside" first.)
Again, this is not something I can control and I do not know if the preview is created by Amazon or the publishers. My best guess is that whoever does it has not gotten to that point yet. Other CRC Press books on Amazon do have the look inside feature.
Well, my colleague finished the book about a year ago and is still struggling with the production process, with several rounds of disappointing proofs he gets back, and the process is very slow. Of course, also in his case, he worked with LaTeX, and the result looks very good (as expected from LaTeX), but obviously the production office transfers it to another system (maybe xml), and already their things can get easily worse. The last proofs he got had completely mixed references like pointing to wrong equations, cluttering the literature/reference lists etc. etc. It's annoying technical things that all work well with his LaTeX version (also using a style provided by the publisher, i.e., it looks indeed like the books of this publisher). I don't understand, why they do not simply take directly the pdf from the LaTeX and print it. They also publish it as ebook. With this publishing company, my experience with the ebooks they offer is that you can use the pdf version only anyway. The epub versions, I've seen, are all failures, particularly leading to bad quality of formulae up to the degree of unreadability.
Recently I finished my habilitation thesis. I wrote it in LaTeX without any trouble, including two reference lists, a lot of formulae and figures and putting the published papers at the end (it's a socalled "cumulative habilitation", where you write a longer review-like summary of the published papers of the subject and then attach these papers). Of course, I didn't do the printing with a publisher but just sent my pdf to the university printing office, who also bound it for a very good price. It's of course not as nice as a real book, but at least all typos and mistakes are my own and not that of some production office of a publisher...
I believe that this is essentially what CRC Press does (at least in my case). I provided a print ready pdf according to their style files, they add the necessary surrounding pages (such as the copyright notes etc) and print it. To be honest, I clearly prefer this way and I am sorry for your colleague's problems. For me the process was very streamlined. The proofreaders read my pdf and provided me with their comments rather than making changes to the pdf. Whenever I did not agree on some comment in the proofs it was open for discussion. I made the changes I agreed with, which I think improved the text, and made my case for why the other changes should not be made or why I proposed a different change. They accepted all such arguments.
This is essentially what is done for PhD theses in physics in Sweden (called "compilation thesis" - freely translated). It is in fact exactly how I wrote my thesis.
That also makes a lot of sense. If a PhD student has published papers in peer-reviewed journals, it's another proof of the value of the work, and one should be allowed to write the PhD thesis in this way. In our university, as far as I know, this is not yet possible, i.e., you have to write a full thesis in addition to papers. Fortunately for the habilitation you have the choice to write a quite long thesis or a cumulative one, where you put the most important papers you published on a subject with a somewhat extended review-like summary. I think that should also be possible for the PhD.
In Sweden, at least at my university and all I have seen, you have a choice. Most theory students just write an additional introduction and then put their papers. In hep experiment it is more common to write the thesis as a monologue for obvious reasons. I had 7 papers in my thesis, the usual would be something like 3-6 depending on the extent of each publication.
Indeed, I always wonder, who from the ~1000 people of the big collaborations has really written the papers and how you can make everybody agree with what's written ;-)). I've been once involved in writing a review with the entire working group (10 auhthors), and it wasn't so easy to get everything together in a coherent way, starting from different conventions used. The rescue was to use a version-control system (I think it was SVN at the time) ;-))).
That goes way back to the dawn of computers. Customers (or in this case publishers) each make their unique choices for hardware/software/formats and force everyone else to adapt to that. Try submitting your tax forms to your government in the form of GIF files.
I wrote and sold software in the 70s. The proliferation of platforms and OSs back then was much worse than today. Our staff's efforts were divided roughly 80-20. 80% conversion to multiple customer platforms. 20% to the actual features of the software that add value.
Well, obviously it's possible with @Orodruin 's publisher, CRC Press. I don't see, why one shouldn't simply use the print-ready pdf file produced by LaTeX for printing out the book. Why should publishers bother to transfer it to another format, which is always bound to more errors? Isn't it even more economical for them to have a print-ready file from the author, letting it go through the review process, proof-reading/lectorate and then being sure that precisely this version is then printed?
To be fair, if I had not written in LaTeX I would likely have had to convert it to LaTeX (of course, this is just a guess). On the other hand, I cannot see anyone writing a physics or math textbook in anything else so that may be irrelevant.
My colleague of course also wrote his book in LaTeX with the class file provided by the publisher (and why not telling you that it's Springer, whose textbooks often look indeed as being typeset in LaTeX). At the end it went to production, and they messed all this nice looking LaTeX up, including references to formulae, citations, figures, etc. etc. To me this is explainable only by the assumption that they use the LaTeX source file, provided by the author, and transformed it into something else. That's at least what they do with journal articles (not only Springer but also at least APS and I think also Elsevier, but I must say that with Elsevier I never had any typographical or other technical issues.
It only took you ##\approx 1.5## years to get the book written. Congrats.
I am curious: how long did you think it would take, when you first started -- either as a point estimate or some kind of range bounds? I would have guessed much more than 1.5 years, but I haven't done the work and gathered any data here.
(This is touching on the planning fallacy and a favorite real life error from Kahneman when he was in a group trying to create a textbook -- his group estimated 1.5 to 2.5 years to get the book to completed even though data indicated north of 7 years, and it in fact took 8 years to get said textbook to market ).
I am not sure I had an estimate. Since I was already teaching the subjects since some years I was pretty much already up to speed subject wise. I had written a bunch of lecture notes in different subjects before, so I pretty much knew that the time scale was years. Of course, it also depends on how much time one is willing to put into the project. This was essentially a hobby project that I played with for almost every day during my free time when I did not have anything better to do.
That being said, I got an idea of the time scale from extrapolation pretty early on.
Depending on the size of the group, it may very well be possible that too many cooks spoil the broth.
I really do not know, nor can I imagine the trouble one may go to publish an entire book, an excruciatingly accurate, protracted manuscript that one hopes can long be proudly quoted here on PF or anywhere. Someday I hope too, to say something, to leave something worth remembering.
It seems I expend a great deal of effort to make a single post on PF that is anywhere near bullet-proof, and often fail. Perhaps more effort is in order for me. In that, you are an inspiration to do better just because you shared your interesting journey to build a much larger such edifice. Thanks for your insight. --Wes
Here is a heads-up to anyone who wants a shot at winning a copy: The PF Photo Contest thread featuring a copy of the book is now open for submissions.
The actual number of scientists writing the papers is typically small - rarely more than 5 with large contributions, and they will split up the work (“X does the introduction, Y does the data selection, ...”). Afterwards you have several rounds of discussion and comments - first from other members of the analysis group, then from the larger working group your analysis is a part of (e.g. “Higgs” if you study some Higgs decay) and/or dedicated reviewers from this group, later the whole collaboration.
It is not always possible to make everyone happy. Sometimes you even get directly contradicting wishes. Choose one version and move on. Most of the 1000+ authors won’t add comments, but if the proposed paper is popular you can get 50+ sets of comments to go through.
(If this gets a longer discussion I’ll move it to a separate thread.)
Congrats Orodruin!! What an achievement!
Separate names with a comma.