Feedback on the Springer Parser

[vtshitoyan]

Here is some feedback from Tanjin who analyzed the results for the Springer Parser based on a few papers.

1. Many blanks are inserted, especially when dealing with subscripts/superscripts. This makes it difficult to correctly parse chemical formula.
   E.g.:
   Pb(Zr x Ti 1− x )O 3
   Pb 0.97 Nd 0.02 (Zr 0.55 Ti 0.45 )O 3 (PNZT)
   ScTaO 4
   Ar + ion
   Mg 2 Ni
   7.49 × 10 3 kg/m 3
   1.5 J/cm 2
   CuK α
   k -space

2. Paragraphs in the same section are not separated
   E.g.: Introduction section of the paper 10.1007/s00339-013-8138-9.

3. References are not removed

4. Some text is missed in a section with sub-sections.
   E.g.: Methods section missed for the paper 10.1007/bf01142064.

5. I am not sure if we need to keep the formula in same format?
   E.g. Some formula starts and ends with "$$", which some starts and ends with "\(" as the boundary.
   Formula 1: $$ \sigma_{\text{wh}} = \sqrt { \sigma_{\text{sat}}^{2} - \left( {\sigma_{\text{sat}}^{2} - \sigma_{0}^{2} } \right)\exp ( - r(\varepsilon - \varepsilon_{0} ))} $$
   Formula 2: \( {\dot{{\varepsilon }}} \)?

I think we should at least address the first 4 points. Happy to discuss this further.

[OlgaGKononova]

On #5: usually when LaTex markups are embedded in HTML/XML text they also have a tag with plane text. So the easiest way is to substitute all the LaTex span with the string under plane text tag.

[eddotman]

Would it be possible to provide a couple examples of the raw HTML / XML for the inserted blanks? That might make it easier / quicker to narrow down that issue.

[shaunrong]

Do we still have dois for issue 1, 3 and 5? So proper unit test can be developed for the fix. @zhugeyicixin @vtshitoyan

[zhugeyicixin]

Do we still have dois for issue 1, 3 and 5? So proper unit test can be developed for the fix. @zhugeyicixin @vtshitoyan

Yes. Here are some example dois.

For 1, "10.1007/s00339-013-8138-9" and "10.1007/bf02663182"
For 3, "10.1007/s00339-013-8138-9" and "10.1007/s10853-011-5258-5"
For 5, "10.1007/s10853-015-9171-1"

[shaunrong]

@zjensen262 please refer these DOIs for unit tests in #26

[IAmGrootel]

@zhugeyicixin thanks for the list of dois, they were very helpful to isolate and resolve the issues. I think I have fixed the first four issues as mentioned above, and I am going through some additional papers to verify.

For some reason we cannot download the html version of 10.1007/bf02663182. Could you send us the html file of this doi if you have it on hand?

[zhugeyicixin]

@IAmGrootel Hi Alex, here is the html file for 10.1007/bf02663182.

paper_10.1007_bf02663182.txt

@zhugeyicixin thanks for the list of dois, they were very helpful to isolate and resolve the issues. I think I have fixed the first four issues as mentioned above, and I am going through some additional papers to verify.

For some reason we cannot download the html version of 10.1007/bf02663182. Could you send us the html file of this doi if you have it on hand?

[IAmGrootel]

Thanks! I just submitted a pull request. Let me know if there are further issues.

[hhaoyan]

Please close this issue if you think the problems have been solved @zhugeyicixin Thanks!