Thanks, footnotes and the econ shells

pviton's picture

SWP 6.0.28 on MS-WIN

-- 'thanks'

The update notes contain several mentions of
the 'thanks' tag. I don't really understand
it when they say:

.. just ... use correct current notation for 'thanks'

--- could someone clarify?

At any rate, the material that appears to
be tagged 'thanks' in the J.Pol.Econ
shell does not typeset. This was pointed out
some time ago, and it does not appear to have
been fixed. The same applies to the Am.Econ
Review and J. Int'l Econ shells

On the other hand the text "note of acknowledgement"
in the Quart.J.Econ shell does appear correctly (as an
asterisk'd footnote). (Also in the J Econ Lit
J Econ Persp.) From the material at the
bottom of the screen, the QJE stuff appears to
be a 'note' inside a 'notewrapper'. Could someone
explain how to get this in your own document (and also
why the other listed shells don't use it). For
example, "notewrapper" doesn't appear as an
option in the drop-down for the Note icon.

-- Econ shells

The footnotes in the Amer. Econ Review
shell do not typeset. This was pointed out
some time ago; and I don't quite understand
why it has not been addressed.

On the other hand, the footnotes in the
other econ shells do typeset. (You might want
to add a space in "TheQuarterly" at the
top of this shell).

--- updates

This raises another issue. It has been
8 months since 6.0.27 was updated to 6.0.28.
The intervening period included a couple
of postings from users who were in the middle
of trying to do some real work, but found
they couldn't proceed because of a problem
with the software. They received no help
from the developers (or at least, no help
that appeared here).

I think this is a severe problem. A user
who realizes that he or she may have to wait
8 months for a solution -- and even then,
to judge by the evidence, there's no guarantee
that the problem will actually be addressed ---
is unlikely to even give the software a try,
and certainly not risk it for "production" work.

I think that the developers ought to give more
thought to interim updates. This is especially
so when a fix (as in the examples above) is
likely to involve just a change in a shell file,
which has no impact on the rest of the system.
(I say this because 'thanks' and footnotes
are already working in some shells, so presumably
it's just a matter of making the errant shells
conform). I don't see why it wouldn't be possible
to release new versions of the shells effectively
immediately, and perhaps without requiring
an update of the entire system. The same could
apply to other relatively straighforward fixes.

Of course, there will be issues whose solution
requires extensive testing, and here it is not
to be expected that there will be an immediate
fix. Still, 8 months is definitely too long.


RE: American_Economic_Review--Similar.sci

I don't think this shell was ever correct in Version 6.  It was missing the TeX field at the end of the document that typesets the end notes.  The attached version is a better match to the shell in Version 5.5.

I'll try to answer everything

I'll try to answer everything in your post, but not all at once. 

There were some shells that used the thanks tag incorrectly.  The update for Journal_of_Political_Economy in 6.0.28 is cleary wrong.  I'm going to guess that I copied the construct use by AMS shells into this shell.  Attached is an updated shell that will be in the next update.  To use it as a shell, copy it over the existing shells\Articles\Journal_of_Political_Economy.sci file.  You can also just save to your favorite working directory, open it, then use File, Save As to create your new document.

pviton's picture

George: thanks for the quick

George: thanks for the quick response - much appreciated. I can confirm that the new Amer.Econ.Rev. and J.Pol.Econ shells now work as expected with regard to 'thanks' and footnotes.

May I suggest that a way be found to make these more generally available to users? Perhaps by putting them into a zip file which people could then download and install over the existing versions?

Remember that the same problem appears in the J. Int'l.Econ shell (asterisk in the author's name, but no asterisked footnote). With luck it'll be the same fix as with the AER shell.