I suggest you to make this a new question. This will also get better answers.

The problem with this pile of questions is that, instead of helping the OP get out of the X Y problem, people stay focussed on Y, mark the question as a duplicate of Y in a matter of minutes and X is never properly addressed.

A similar strategy: branches are useful when collaborating with co-authors who don't/won't use HG/GIT/etc.. In that case, it is useful to branch of a copy of the paper as it existed at the time when you sent the draft to co-author X; then when you later get comments/diffs/changes, you can apply them and then merge. – D.W. Nov 20, 2012 at 5:53

People absolutely try. I can't name the journals that try these off the top of my head, but as you can see from that Wikipedia section, there are journals that: Do double-blind peer review (authors don't know who the reviewers are, and vice versa) Do triple-blind peer review (authors & editors & reviewers don't know who each other are) Do open peer review (everyone knows who everyone else is) Do open peer reports (reviews are published together with the paper) Do open participation (reviewers self-select to review the paper) Do post-publication peer review (every paper is published, reviews are done after publication) Do results-blind peer review (reviewers receive a manuscript where the results & conclusions are omitted) Do two-stage results-blind peer review (review done in two stages; in the first stage reviewers don't know the results/conclusions, in the second stage they do) Do novelty-blind peer review (reviewers are specifically instructed not to comment on whether the paper is novel, only if it is correct) The fact that the traditional model has endured is a sign of how robust it is. Everyone knows it is flawed, but nobody has been able to come up with a better model. ShareShare a link to this answer (Includes your user id)Copy linkCC BY-SA 4.0 Edit Follow Follow this answer to receive notifications answered Jan 5 at 7:58 Allure

How to protect scientific open research from being patented?

Stack-exchange is not teaching or education. It's just giving out answers for upvotes. Just like some tech support is about closing tickets.

Help defend Monica from defamation! Stack Overflow, Inc. must repair the damage caused by their libel against Monica Cellio, cooperate with the community, be willing to talk, treat users with respect, learn about the world outside the United States, open the governance of the sites.

Stack Exchange does not divide up by topic, it divides up by readership. This is something that people stumble over, but if you look at all of the site descriptions in the drop-down list of "Stack Exchange communities" at the top of this very page you'll see that all of the communities are described in terms of the people that read and write the questions and answers, not in terms of the subject matters. It takes a while to spot this, especially if one has a background in the likes of CompuServe, Fidonet, Usenet, I-Link, and so forth, which did divide up by topic, and whose FAQ documents did as well. But it is how things are structured by the company that runs the sites, and is the methodology that one can see all the way back to 2009 (where the question was "Which community do you consider yourself a part of?") if one goes and looks.

Also discussed in stackoverflow.com/questions/11003418/…

‘-a COMMAND’ ‘--alternate-editor=COMMAND’ Specify a command to run if ‘emacsclient’ fails to contact Emacs. This is useful when running ‘emacsclient’ in a script. As a special exception, if COMMAND is the empty string, then ‘emacsclient’ starts Emacs in daemon mode (as ‘emacs --daemon’) and then tries connecting again. ‘-c’ ‘--create-frame’ Create a new graphical “client frame”, instead of using an existing Emacs frame. See below for the special behavior of ‘C-x C-c’ in a client frame. If Emacs cannot create a new graphical frame (e.g., if it cannot connect to the X server), it tries to create a text terminal client frame, as though you had supplied the ‘-t’ option instead. ‘-t’ ‘--tty’ ‘-nw’ Create a new client frame on the current text terminal, instead of using an existing Emacs frame. This behaves just like the ‘-c’ option, described above, except that it creates a text terminal frame (*note Non-Window Terminals::).

I do this by starting an emacs daemon when I login. Where you put this command depends on your desktop manager. I use i3, which is configured to run a script on login that includes the following: emacs --daemon & With that, emacs is always running in the background, and I open a new client with emacsclient -c -n, bound to a convenient keybinding in the window manager. If you're working in a terminal, you only need a simple alias like alias emc='emacsclient', possibly with -n, -c or -t arguments, depending on how you use it. Do check out the options for emacsclient in the manual: ((emacs) emacsclient Options, accessible from Emacs by C-h r m emacsclient options <enter>). You can use the -a flag to automatically start an emacs daemon if it isn't running already, and -c or -t to open a new frame or terminal client, rather than reusing an existing one (in the same session):

Since emacsclient can handle long package loading time proerly, I really want to keep at least one emacs process, and most of the time only one emacs process, open as a background process and better hide GUI. Right now I defined the following function in .bashrc: emc () { if [[ $# -eq 0 ]]; then emacs --eval "(suspend-frame)" & return fi args=($*); setsid emacsclient -c -e "(find-file \"${args[*]}\")" } And also have the following line in .bashrc: emc So everytime I open up a shell, I will end up having a new emacs process. The problem is I will have many additional unnecessary emacs process after opening up many shells. However, I only want to maintain one single emacs process all the time from startup better hide GUI.