Hum... I think I understand your point but... That's seems more related to marketing than scientific publishing and probably is a widespread style and the reaso

Hum... I think I understand your point but... That's seems more related to marketing than scientific publishing and probably is a widespread style and the reason why many found modern papers boring and deprived of any sentiment... I understand there are time and "publish or perish" constraints but IMO, maybe in a romantic vision perhaps unrealistic now, a publication should be something BIG, in the sense "I do not publish a small observed thing who happen to be not that special, just a small advancement in something AS A PAPER", should be published as a talk in some conference, in a news group/ML with some colleagues etc but not more than that, feeds form ArXiv and alike are already too much charged to saturate them even more. A paper should be a kind of gem, something that mark a potentially important advancement, observation etc, something anyone interesting in a field and probably some others would read it very attentively. Caring the presentation like a mechanical article is more a mass-production of articles I expect from a tabloid... Oh, about certain journals: those who ask for certain files formats (like .doc/x) or give PURE CRAPPY templates should IMVO get what they deserve: be ignored spreading the voice that those who publish with them will be badly seen by their peer just because of the crappy journal choice. I understand their need to be consistent, but they MUST gives state-of-art LaTeX templates, docbook etc not crap. I'm not a scientist and very rarely have had to write small stuff about certain companies infra design and well... I have had hard time not telling some others humans what I think they should do with their stuff... In that case I feel the pain of those who have to deal with them regularly!