2020-07-18 13:35:28 (GMT)
If you are displeased with how Springer's typesetters modify your LNCS manuscripts, you might be interested in the following. A colleague has found a time-economical way of dealing with that. Supposedly, the typesetters are paid by the number of changes they made, giving them an incentive to rubbish our beautiful documents. So he has two templates, below, one which he uses at the beginning (I'm not sure to which address, though, but I can find it out), and one when he gets the proofs. It worked beautifully for him every time, including at this year's IJCAR. You'll notice the "charming Dutch style." Unfortunately, the same approach doesn't work for journals, where they use a different process.
Template 1:
Dear XXX,
Please be warned: we don't accept any changes to our paper, including
minor modifications such as different spacing or a different alignment
of numbers in a table. If your typesetters change anything, then YOU
DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO PUBLISH OUR PAPER. If we detect any change
in the proofreading version, then we will demand that your typesetters
start over again (and again) using the original latex sources. In the
past this has been a painful process for all parties involved, but in
our experience the project manager will get the message at some point.
Please ask your colleague Xavier Mathew for details.Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.
Best regards,
YYY
Template 2:
Dear XXX,
We noticed various changes made by your typesetters. For example,
the colors used in some figures were changed. As announced in my prior
email, we demand that you start over again with the sources that we
provided and don't make any changes this time around.We will wait for a new proofreading version. Let's avoid many
iterations of this painful process by simply publishing our carefully
prepared version. Again: If your typesetters change anything, then YOU
DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO PUBLISH OUR PAPER.Best regards,
YYY