↓ Skip to main content

An Efficiency Comparison of Document Preparation Systems Used in Academic Research and Development.

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 111,598)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
13 blogs
twitter
3039 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
weibo
7 weibo users
facebook
83 Facebook pages
googleplus
12 Google+ users

Readers on

mendeley
187 Mendeley
citeulike
11 CiteULike
Title
An Efficiency Comparison of Document Preparation Systems Used in Academic Research and Development.
Published in
PLoS ONE, December 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0115069
Pubmed ID
Authors

Markus Knauff, Jelica Nejasmic, Cynthia Gibas

Abstract

The choice of an efficient document preparation system is an important decision for any academic researcher. To assist the research community, we report a software usability study in which 40 researchers across different disciplines prepared scholarly texts with either Microsoft Word or LaTeX. The probe texts included simple continuous text, text with tables and subheadings, and complex text with several mathematical equations. We show that LaTeX users were slower than Word users, wrote less text in the same amount of time, and produced more typesetting, orthographical, grammatical, and formatting errors. On most measures, expert LaTeX users performed even worse than novice Word users. LaTeX users, however, more often report enjoying using their respective software. We conclude that even experienced LaTeX users may suffer a loss in productivity when LaTeX is used, relative to other document preparation systems. Individuals, institutions, and journals should carefully consider the ramifications of this finding when choosing document preparation strategies, or requiring them of authors.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3,039 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 5%
United Kingdom 8 4%
Japan 6 3%
Germany 4 2%
France 4 2%
Brazil 4 2%
Canada 4 2%
Netherlands 3 2%
Portugal 3 2%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 127 68%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 27%
Researcher 39 21%
Student > Master 25 13%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Professor 11 6%
Other 45 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 33 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 18%
Engineering 18 10%
Psychology 14 7%
Physics and Astronomy 11 6%
Other 78 42%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2184. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 June 2017.
All research outputs
#218
of 7,945,514 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#7
of 111,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10
of 239,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#2
of 2,253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,945,514 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 111,598 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 239,224 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,253 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.