Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

9
  • 12
    It's almost certainly copyrighted, probably by the journal, otherwise by the authors. If you distribute your copy without their permission, legal action is quite possible. Commented Jan 15, 2014 at 2:41
  • 2
    One thing to be aware of is the possibility of introducing errors in a retypeset version. We all think we never make mistakes (!) but... errors happen. If retypesetting became common practice one would fear a propagation of errors. Remember that published versions have been carefully proofread by the author, which is likely not to happen for a retypeset version. Also, the scanned version on your link is admittedly of rather poor quality but new copies/scans can be made from a copy of the journal, which I suspect would be just as useful.
    – A.G.
    Commented Jan 15, 2014 at 23:58
  • This is most certainly not typeset in TeX (which hasn't changed much since 1982 and not since 1990) but something else. Commented Jan 16, 2014 at 7:59
  • I just downloaded a clean legal copy directly from nature and ran Adobe's built in OCR on it. It is not perfect, but it may be good enough.
    – StrongBad
    Commented Jan 17, 2014 at 16:04
  • 2
    Seems to be hosted on one of the authors' website as well Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Commented Jan 21, 2014 at 15:28