deletions | additions       diff --git a/section_Introduction_label_sec_intro__.tex b/section_Introduction_label_sec_intro__.tex  index b98b57b..2b8d362 100644  --- a/section_Introduction_label_sec_intro__.tex  +++ b/section_Introduction_label_sec_intro__.tex 
...
The core of the transparency problem is that we are still using the original publishing metaphor for documents, dating back to the innovations of 16th century Galileo Galilei, while simultaneously working on 21st century projects which are potentially large-scale, high-dimensional, multi-author and/or internationally distributed \cite{Goodman_2014}. The usual scientific document submitted to academic venues today is still oriented towards the printed page, remains opaque to the underlying data, of which it presents static snapshots, and is constrained by page count and margin sizes, often preventing it from providing sufficient detail of methodology and experimental setup.  This disconnect between experimental results and publications offers room for unintentional bias and experimental defects to remain unnoticed, making it difficult for reviewers to verify, and for follow-up experiments to continue the work in question. Studies have shown that even journals of the highest impact factors are vulnerable to retractions (see Fig.~\ref{fig:retractions} for an illustration derived in \cite{Fang_2011}). In 2015 we have also observed a stream of high-profile retractions from some of the best scored journals that illustrate this problem, as tracked and discussed by the great recent  Retraction Watch\footnote{\url{http://retractionwatch.com}, seen June 2015} initiative \cite{Marcus_2011}.