Examining paper proofs

Question

When you receive a paper proof and review it prior to publication, what exactly should you be looking for?

The things that come to mind are any changes in the annotation of author list and the corresponding author. What else is there?

Answer 1

This is basically the last chance to fix anything (non-substantial) in the paper, so in addition to the things you mentioned, I usually check for spelling or grammatical errors, misprints in formula's, etc. Sometimes one might want to add a sentence to clarify something.

Finally, if the journal did any copy-editing, you should check their job. Some journal provide a list of changes they made for that purpose. You should also check if the pictures and formulas are still in the right place.

Added: sometimes it's necessary to update the literature list, for example if preprints cited there have been published in the meantime.

Answer 2

One other thing to be concerned about is overzealous copy editors, particularly when it comes to highly mathematical papers. In one of the first manuscripts I ever submitted, the copy editor in question decided that what I wrote as \frac{1}{2)x really ought to be 1/(2x) (pardon the use of LaTeX notation). This would have completely altered the intent and the results of the derivation and everything that followed!

So, the lesson of this is that you need to check everything that was changed by the copy editors. If they give you a "mark-up," review that first, and then make sure everything has been transferred correctly to the paper. If not, you'll need to go side-by-side with the submitted manuscript and the final proof, and make sure eveyrhing is as you intended it to be.

Answer 3

Between your manuscript being accepted and the proofs being created two things are likely to happen: a copy editor may make changes and portions of the manuscript (e.g., tables) may be retyped (as the manuscript is converted from the format you submitted into the journal format). I know a number of PIs who get two people to look at the proofs. One person reads the proof out loud while the other person compares what was in the submitted version. I know one group that goes sentence-by-sentence backwards. The idea is you never know what will get screwed up in the conversion process. While I like the concept, I spend a lot less time going through the proofs.

Answer 4

I always proofread the full paper, but not necessarily by comparing it word by word with the original. However, I give particular attention to:

• Title, authors, affiliations
• Abstract, introduction and conclusion

• Figures and figure captions. In particular:

  • quality of the graphics produced
  • do color and symbols mentionned in the caption match the figure?
  • if the journal has black & white figures in print, is the figure understandable in black and white?
  • if the journal has color figures only in the online version: does the caption make sense for both version (color and B&W)?

• Equations: most problems I saw introduced during typesetting were in equations. For many publishers, the text is transformed semi-automatically from your original file, but equations are re-keyed by an operator. People make mistakes.

• Numbers: all tables, all inline numbers. Units (a “kJ/mol” might become a “kJ mol”).

• References (citations are a key part of doing research):

  • if references are hyperlinked (using DOI number), click on each to check that they match the right online paper
  • if a paper is “in press” or “accepted for publication” or something else, update its status if it has been published

• Acknowledgment: somehow, I often find that I might have missed someone in the acknowledgment when writing the initial paper, and for most publishers it is not too late to add them :)