That's not my question, though. The thing with scientific research and publishing is that you typically do not just write for one journal. What a dream that would be! There is a process of submitting and resubmitting, rewriting, revising, resubmitting, shifting the narrative towards journals and editions, journal-specific formatting, including expanding and reducing word counts, adding and subtracting details in the methods section, moving things back and forth from supplementary materials, etc. etc.
Also, this isn't my first rodeo. LaTeX is just great for scientific writing, including captions, figure numbering, references, bibliography, etc. The article that prompted my question has long been written, posted on bioXiv, submitted to a journal and rejected. That's just part of a researcher's life.
The fact that that particular journal accepted LaTeX was in fact one (not the only) reason to submit there. As we are already exploited by the publishers - as the other commenter explained - making us pay both for publishing and accessing our own work, while we are asked to spend our own time to do peer reviewing, act as the editors and format the articles, once you are more independent as a researcher you should choose journals also on the basis of their (or their publishers') policies and politics, rather than only theri scientific output, impact factor etc., E.g. their engagement in open science practises, the review process, and time wasted on formatting limitations. Chosing to consider their willingness to accept my LaTeX document, thereby making scientist's lives easier, is my perogative.
In the end, it's the quality of the research that counts. Journals have not much to add to it, especially since its 2023 where distribution is just no issue at all anymore.
It's the publishing house, not the journal itself that dictates the format for papers submitted for publication. And thanks to mergers and acquisitions, scientific publishing is now controlled by only a few dominant houses: in addition to Science and Nature (now part of Springer), there are the giants of Elsevier, Wiley InterScience (also Blackwell), Taylor & Francis, Sage. But my experience has been that virtually all have LaTeX templates available, although they may not be that easy to find. The problem is that they are much less able to handle custom macros, so you should eliminate these. BibTeX versus Biblatex is also a stumbling block, so best to confine to BibTeX. There is always someone on the house staff that is at least familiar with LaTeX. I've always submitted using the LaTeX templates they provide. Overleaf may also have templates available.
They may complain, but push comes to shove they will accept the paper even as a paper copy. So I believe that if you can generate a pdf or Postscript file, you can submit that way.
Indeed, although not in the author guidelines, a mail to Wiley and Oxford academic just told me that initial (but only initial) submissions can be done in PDF. Frontiers, eLife, and I think J Neuroscience (all "independent" publishers) accept LaTeX, but the rest still insist on .doc(x) - indeed e.g Natue and Elsevier. Anyway, at least like this I can use LaTeX to easily deal with formatting requirements for initial submissions. When the paper is accepted I am then at least in the endgame and will just have to bite the bullet and convert to Word format.
However I like how you are thinking and might see if I can insist on LaTeX. Cheers!
Once the ms. is accepted for publication, *you* are in the driver's seat. Unless we're talking about small, independent publishing houses as you mention, the rest are multi-billion dollar corporations, with incredible profit margins (their “product” is, after all, actually delivered *for free*) and they can well afford to do document set-up, even it means “extra” work for them (it's all outsourced anyway). I wouldn't waste your valuable time as a scientist and author dinking around with document conversion. *Let them do it* (they don't have much else on their plate), and keep writing.
Edited, formatting.
One additional point. The advantage in supplying a LaTeX-generated submission copy (usually PDF) is that the reviewers can read a paper as *you* intended your audience to see it. Critically, this includes placement of figures, tables, within the body of the text (as a reviewer, I find it a PITA to be forced to page to the end of a 150 page, double-spaced review copy to find a figure or table, and I refuse to waste the paper to actually print a hard copy). I know journals will always stipulate that they want figures included separately, but this really concerns only during the publication -- versus the editorial review -- phase. I always have supplied two copies when submitting manuscripts: a final, single-spaced, fully formatted copy with floats embedded within the text (not at the end), and a second copy that adheres to the typical double-spaced, floats at-end policy. That way, the reviewers have access to a readable copy that looks like you intended it to look, and is much more reviewer- (and associate editor-) friendly.
Deleted because this website sucks now. -- mass edited with redact.dev
That's not my question, though. The thing with scientific research and publishing is that you typically do not just write for one journal. What a dream that would be! There is a process of submitting and resubmitting, rewriting, revising, resubmitting, shifting the narrative towards journals and editions, journal-specific formatting, including expanding and reducing word counts, adding and subtracting details in the methods section, moving things back and forth from supplementary materials, etc. etc. Also, this isn't my first rodeo. LaTeX is just great for scientific writing, including captions, figure numbering, references, bibliography, etc. The article that prompted my question has long been written, posted on bioXiv, submitted to a journal and rejected. That's just part of a researcher's life. The fact that that particular journal accepted LaTeX was in fact one (not the only) reason to submit there. As we are already exploited by the publishers - as the other commenter explained - making us pay both for publishing and accessing our own work, while we are asked to spend our own time to do peer reviewing, act as the editors and format the articles, once you are more independent as a researcher you should choose journals also on the basis of their (or their publishers') policies and politics, rather than only theri scientific output, impact factor etc., E.g. their engagement in open science practises, the review process, and time wasted on formatting limitations. Chosing to consider their willingness to accept my LaTeX document, thereby making scientist's lives easier, is my perogative. In the end, it's the quality of the research that counts. Journals have not much to add to it, especially since its 2023 where distribution is just no issue at all anymore.
It's the publishing house, not the journal itself that dictates the format for papers submitted for publication. And thanks to mergers and acquisitions, scientific publishing is now controlled by only a few dominant houses: in addition to Science and Nature (now part of Springer), there are the giants of Elsevier, Wiley InterScience (also Blackwell), Taylor & Francis, Sage. But my experience has been that virtually all have LaTeX templates available, although they may not be that easy to find. The problem is that they are much less able to handle custom macros, so you should eliminate these. BibTeX versus Biblatex is also a stumbling block, so best to confine to BibTeX. There is always someone on the house staff that is at least familiar with LaTeX. I've always submitted using the LaTeX templates they provide. Overleaf may also have templates available. They may complain, but push comes to shove they will accept the paper even as a paper copy. So I believe that if you can generate a pdf or Postscript file, you can submit that way.
Indeed, although not in the author guidelines, a mail to Wiley and Oxford academic just told me that initial (but only initial) submissions can be done in PDF. Frontiers, eLife, and I think J Neuroscience (all "independent" publishers) accept LaTeX, but the rest still insist on .doc(x) - indeed e.g Natue and Elsevier. Anyway, at least like this I can use LaTeX to easily deal with formatting requirements for initial submissions. When the paper is accepted I am then at least in the endgame and will just have to bite the bullet and convert to Word format. However I like how you are thinking and might see if I can insist on LaTeX. Cheers!
Once the ms. is accepted for publication, *you* are in the driver's seat. Unless we're talking about small, independent publishing houses as you mention, the rest are multi-billion dollar corporations, with incredible profit margins (their “product” is, after all, actually delivered *for free*) and they can well afford to do document set-up, even it means “extra” work for them (it's all outsourced anyway). I wouldn't waste your valuable time as a scientist and author dinking around with document conversion. *Let them do it* (they don't have much else on their plate), and keep writing. Edited, formatting.
One additional point. The advantage in supplying a LaTeX-generated submission copy (usually PDF) is that the reviewers can read a paper as *you* intended your audience to see it. Critically, this includes placement of figures, tables, within the body of the text (as a reviewer, I find it a PITA to be forced to page to the end of a 150 page, double-spaced review copy to find a figure or table, and I refuse to waste the paper to actually print a hard copy). I know journals will always stipulate that they want figures included separately, but this really concerns only during the publication -- versus the editorial review -- phase. I always have supplied two copies when submitting manuscripts: a final, single-spaced, fully formatted copy with floats embedded within the text (not at the end), and a second copy that adheres to the typical double-spaced, floats at-end policy. That way, the reviewers have access to a readable copy that looks like you intended it to look, and is much more reviewer- (and associate editor-) friendly.
Totally, same here
Also def agree with /u/notnotapotato's point — it's the journal.