I am not sure to understand where those online images are uploaded. The editor’s website? or any website we may choose?
In the latter case, we could even include more than those 5 figures we now have.
It must be the editor’s.
@amelia, here is the thing. Our Overleaf prints on A4 with large margins: is that accurate in terms of the journal’s page size? I tried printing, then looked at the height of figures: Figure 3 is about 3.2 inches, Figure 4 is about 3 inches. If that’s accurate, we would need to cut at least 600 words.
And another thing: where can we see a word count?
Found the word count: File => Word count. We stand at 4,335. ??? I wonder what that even means…
I had to use a different word count function. Editor says we are at about 6100 words sans tables and figures. The two online ones I used (PDF word counters) find the same.
Heads up @melancon @markomanka. @amelia and I prepared another version that should be now within specs. Hard to say, since word counters disagree and the editors would not tell us what software they use. Anyway, what we did is move three pictures to the online-only additional materials, as suggested by Guy. We also moved Marco’s “coding as compression” idea into the future work, as currently that’s a fascinating idea, but not yet a hard result.
I really hope this is done now. 
@amelia, over to you for submission.
1 Like
Thanks @alberto for taking the lead on this. I am surprised the editor wouldn’t tell us how they compute the word count … it’s a silly cat and mouse game that’s consuming everyone’s precious time …
Good news team!!!
@melancon @alberto @markomanka
review of your article, “Semantic socialnetworks: A mixed methods approach todigital ethnography,” with cottica , manca , vallet, and melan¸con, is complete.
your article is accepted for publication in FIELD METHODS.
your article is tentatively scheduled for volume 32(3), 2020.
your article will appear in advance of publication in the online-first space of the journal’s website, at fmx.sagepub.com.
we will be in touch next when we prepare your article for publication.
thank you for giving us the opportunity to review your work.
with regards,
H. Russell Bernard, Editor
Amber Wutich, Associate Editor
FIELD METHODS
3 Likes
At last! Congrats everyone.
3 Likes
Yeah! I hadn’t seen that good news! Congrats everyone.
Hi everyone.
We have the final, final proofs for this. I have answered most of the final questions but need help on AQ6, 7, and 9. Can someone take a look today and let me know? They need to be returned today.
FM Paper Proof Edits.pdf (421.3 KB)
Also, if everyone who can could give it a final look over, that would be great. This is what will be published in the journal, so last chance to make any changes.
@matthias, @alberto is on the road today and may not be able to help.
Maybe you know the answer to this question — the reviewers want to know what version of Discourse we used for Open Care, and what version of Open Ethnographer, if there are versions. They only gave us one day to turn this around so your help would be much appreciated if you know the answer 
Thank you!
Got a reply from Alberto, all good.
1 Like
Thanks Amelia for taking care of this. Can’t wait to see the paper finally published!!!
The PDF is almost impossible to edit. I cannot even copy stuff out of it. A general problem is that it seems that the emphasis we added via LaTEX has disappeared.
Here’s my proposals:
- in the abstract, add quote signs, or italicize:
We call these networks “semantic social networks”
or, better
We call these networks semantic social networks
- The final paragraph of the abstract is hard to read, too many brackets. I propose to drop references to section, since we are not allowed to number them. So:
We first situate our contribution in the digital ethnography and network science literature. Then, we introduce a data model for SSN. Next, we present data […]
( That the was added by me, I think we need it, no? I defer to @amelia as a native English speaker)
- Page 2 (of the paper, not the PDF) at the bottom: the word “Codes” should be written as “codes”, uncapitalized.
- Page 8. When definiing the words “contributions” and annotations, the words should be italicized (or, worse, put between quote signs)
[…] We call contribution a testimony […]
We call annotation the atomic result […]
- Page 8. The word “Annotations” is a title (of the same level as “Contribution” above, and not a field of the contribution data type). It should be:
Contribution
[…]
Date and timeAnnotations
Ethnographers associate […]
- Page 9. A “the” is missing. Plus, Are we sure about referencing sections this way (capitalized, no italic, no quote signs)? It seems ugly:
We used the method described in the A Data Model for Digital Ethnography section
- Page 9. Something seems to be missing before the word “Newman”.
- Page 12. Obvious typo, a random letter “Z”. Should be
A connected social network signals that informants who have made the connection between those two codes are in conversation with each other: they are aware […}
- further down in the same paragraph, there is an incorrectly capitalized “they”. I would also replace one word. Should be
A disconnected one signals that that they never interacted at all: they agree that the two codes […]
- Page 12, bottom, I would eliminate the word “perhaps”. Should be:
When combined with open standards and open data, they could attempt to handle thousands of informants.
Finally, AQ9: the usage of C to denote clustering coefficient is commonplace in graph theory literature. Average clustering coefficient could be denoted, even more precisely, with a C with a bar on top, in LaTEX the command is \bar{C}.
I know, it’s a nightmare — they sent me a version with comments that are hyperlinked, but that version is read-only cannot be edited or even saved under a different name or as a copy. The only way to do it is to export the PDF, which makes everything static.
Changes incorporated and corrections submitted.
2 Likes
Congratulations, everyone! Excited to read this one.