Loomio
Tue 1 Oct 2019 2:33PM

Logo of the Overlay Journal in Mechanics

VAY Vladislav A. Yastrebov Public Seen by 224
VAY

Vladislav A. Yastrebov Tue 1 Oct 2019 2:36PM

VAY

Vladislav A. Yastrebov Tue 1 Oct 2019 2:39PM

VAY

Vladislav A. Yastrebov Tue 1 Oct 2019 2:40PM

VAY

Vladislav A. Yastrebov Tue 1 Oct 2019 2:41PM

VAY

Vladislav A. Yastrebov Tue 1 Oct 2019 2:42PM

VAY

Vladislav A. Yastrebov Tue 1 Oct 2019 2:55PM

Just a test...

APD

António Pinto da Costa Wed 2 Oct 2019 11:22AM

Dear Vladislav, congratulations for the wounderful work! The moto "SHARE KNOWLEDGE" in Latim is very very appropriate! In a sense, the Latim language represents the ability to communicate through the ages, which is what we want the high quality studies published in JTCAM do. Moreover, the meaning of the moto could not be more appropriate: to advogate the free sharing of knowledge. In addition, in what concerns logo #3, it transmits immediately the idea of openness and diffusion. Well done! I vote for logo #3.

MM

Maurine Montagnat Thu 3 Oct 2019 7:22AM

Hello
I am not so aware of the symbolic of what appears in those suggestions, but I would vote for logo 2 since the "sun like" structure on the top make me think about dissemination of the scientific results... Thanks a lot for this nice peace of work!

DU

Deleted account Thu 3 Oct 2019 12:06PM

I am really not fan of either of those logos. Cannot we try to be more modern? Vlad, you said you did not want the mention of "Open Access" in the name of the Overlay Journal but you add the Open Access logo in the logo? All this reminds me "Middle Ages", "Cults", "Dark times"... nothing really positive. This logo story is going to take some time...

AA

Alejandro Aragón Fri 4 Oct 2019 10:33AM

I'm with Mathias on this one. The logo looks like one of those coat of arms that was used in middle ages. We're in the digital age, so perhaps a book is also not appropriate. Perhaps trying more "present" elements may work better. I'm not sure including the open access logo is also needed. Sorry I'm not giving enough constructive criticism.

Load More