Comment by karencarits
1 year ago
For scientific writing, you've also got https://manubot.org/ which combines git (for versioning and collaboration) and markdown and multiple good-looking outputs
One of the most useful features is that you can just insert a doi/pubmedid/... and it will automatically fetch and format the references
Edit: One of the biggest problems with the tools for scientific writing is that the writing process if often a collaboration - one author makes a draft, distributes it, and receives comments and revisions. Currently - and sadly - I think Microsoft Word has the best solutions for commenting and revising text, although you have to keep track of multiple versions being emailed around
Edit 2: "We will use our servers to create PDF files" is a no-go for certain documents - unpublished papers are often regarded as quite sensitive
I would guess that Overleaf [0] would be a bigger competitor, they even have a simplified version (no version control or collaboration) that is open source (aGPLv3) and self-hostable [1].
[0]: https://www.overleaf.com/ [1]: https://github.com/overleaf/overleaf?tab=readme-ov-file
I think there is a market for users who don't wanna bother with a "set of tools" as Manubot describes itself on the website.
While MonsterWriter uses LaTeX in the background, you do not see it. You only get the resulting pdf. Also, while it is possible to integrate with Zotero, you don't have to, you can just insert the DOI/ISNB/... into MonsterWriter and it will fetch the info as well.
It is the same problem with a pandoc-based workflow. You just end up yak-shaving and spending more time tuning the toolchain than with your writing work.