> In my experience, almost always the version that gets published is identical to the final "camera ready" version I submit after peer review. This is actually

> In my experience, almost always the version that gets published is identical to the final "camera ready" version I submit after peer review. This is actually a bad thing, and a sign of standards slipping. Even if one uses a LaTeX template there are all kinds of quality-typesetting nuances that many authors are not aware of: where non-breaking spaces are necessary, proper hyphenation of foreign-language names, en dashes instead of hyphens in ranges, etc. I have seen so many publications in maths and sciences where the author was expected to provide camera-ready copy and the final result was sloppy. I agree that learned societies can do a great job of publishing journals and Festschriften, and it is the norm in my own field where our learned societies never handed over their journals to a for-profit publisher. But I am happy that in my own field one's submissions still get hands-on work by trained copyeditors and typesetters so that the final result is perfect regardless of the author's own typesetting competence.