Is typesetting this difficult?

Typesetting Machine: Frankfurt Book Fair 2005 by Harald Kucharek, Karlsruhe (downloaded from Google (5 Apr 2013): Labeled as free to reuse)
Typesetting Machine: Frankfurt Book Fair 2005 by Harald Kucharek, Karlsruhe (downloaded from Google (5 Apr 2013): Labeled as free to reuse)

I am not going to name the journal, or the publisher, but I have just had a very frustrating experience.

I was fortunate enough to have a paper accepted recently and we got to the point where the journal asked me to submit the final set of files so that they could typeset the article.

The paper had quite a few tables in and the journal wanted the final submission to have the tables presented on separate pages, along with a list of the tables. Fortunately, using various latex packages it was not too difficult to do this, although not all Latex packages play nicely with each other and it does take some experimenting.

My frustration though, is what is the publisher going to do with these PDF pages, full of tables, when I also have to submit the source file (i.e. a tex file). Surely, they will construct the tables from the latex files, not use the PDF pages I have supplied?

Another thing they wanted was the text (just the text, not figures or tables) to be sent in single column, double spaced, when the paper (until now) had been two column, single spaced. Again, not that difficult to do with latex but why do they insist on it?

There were a few other things that they needed that, to me, seemed a little redundant.

I can understand that, sometimes, this level of detail might be necessary but surely if the document is written in latex then the publisher can (should) be typesetting the paper using the latex file? Asking for all this other stuff, to me, seems redundant. But then again I am not a typesetter, or a publisher, so maybe there is a good reason?

Anyhow, the important thing is that I have a journal paper accepted!

Latex Editors: WinEdt versus TeXstudio

Latex Editor (Downloaded from Google (5 Apr 2013): Labeled as free to reuse
Latex Editor (Downloaded from Google (5 Apr 2013): Labeled as free to reuse

For more years than I care to remember I have been using WinEdt as my latex editor and, to be honest, I quite like it. It does what it says on the tin. Sometimes, it required 2-3 compiles, along with 2-3 bibliography compiles. Actually, that may not be true but I got into the habit of doing that as somebody (many years ago) told me you had to.

Recently, following a discussion with a final year undergraduate student, where I had persuaded him to change from Word to Latex (something I wish I had done during my PhD). A few days after our discussion he told me, and after consulting with his friends, that he had decided to take the plunge.

He later told me that he was using TeXStudio. I had not come across this before but I thought I would take a look. I had recently downloaded the latest version of WinEdt and, although I had bought a license for the previous version, once the trial time was up on the new version (version 7), I would have to buy a new license. This is fine, but TexStudio is free.

I am actually very impressed with TexStudio. I have not investigated all of its functionality yet (and to be fair, nor have I with WinEdt) but I like the fact that when you compile, the PDF is shown within the application, and opening the PDF file in another application is just one click away. I also like the fact that when you compile it seems to resolve everything in one pass. In WinEdt, it is possible to get question marks where the citations should appear as you needed to compile the bibliography.

Overall, I like the look/feel of TexStudio more than WinEdt and it is free to use, so I think I’ll stick with it for now.

It would be interesting to hear if anybody has a different view, or even an opposite view to mine?