One of the "benefits" we get from paying publishers to publish our work is that they "typeset" it. Actually they don't. They pay typesetters to mutilate it. I don't know how much they pay but it's probably > 10 USD per page. This means that when you pay APCs (Article Processing Charges) YOU are paying typesetters - maybe 200 USD.
Maybe you or your funder is happy with this?
I'm not. Typesetters destroy information. Badly. Often enough to blur or change the science. ALL journals do this. I happen to be hacking PLoSONE today (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115884), but this is unlikely to be specific to them:
So what's the typographical symbol/s in the last line? Hint. It's NOT what it SHOULD be
Unicode Character 'PLUS-MINUS SIGN' (U+00B1)
So what's happened? Try cutting and pasting the last line into a text editor. Mine gives:
(TY/SVL = 0.05+0.01 in males, 0.06+0.01 in females versus 0.08+0.01 in both sexes in L.
This is a DESTRUCTION of information.
So authors should be able to refuse charges for typesetting and save over 100 USD. and thereby improve science.
BTW the same horror appears in the XML. So when the publishers tell you how wonderful XML is, make your own judgment.
There are other horrors of the same sort (besides plus-minus) in the document. Can you spot them?
The only good news is that ContentMine sets out to normalize and remove such junk. It will be a long slog, but if you are committed to proper communication of science, lend a hand.