This should only be about Coffee and Publication Dates, but the original article has been heavily linked, annotated and so forth, and it was only through persistent clicking, did I find a semblance of the original.
On that circuitous route to the original, the one just up from that article showed the date it was submitted then the date it was published with a two-three month lead time.
Forget Coffee and Publication Dates as far as an article about the sequence and apparent evolution of the coffee genome, consider it about the time span between “approved for submission,” or whatever the term was, and the “published” date.
What was fun, most of the material about the article was much more interesting as it was an attempt by lay people to describe the importance of the dense, scientific journal article about the actual sequence. I gave up about a third of the way through.
Not because it was too technical, but because it was too dense.
“Just the facts, ma’am.”
Roll my eyes.
It’s been summed up elsewhere, but the vetting process and the editorial lag time, that shows the difference with various publications. Within online version, too, there were three options available, concise, full, and PDF.
I’ve thought about making my own material thusly available, as a PDF, for further distribution, but I also figure, anyone smart enough to read aPDF should be able to turn any web page into a PDF. It really is pretty easy.
All about keeping the stuff digestible, and that one article, about Coffee and its Publication Dates? 60 to 90 days, at least, for peer reviewed.
kramerwetzel.com (old blog)