Springer recommends eqnarray

I just read on LaTeX-Community.org, that the publisher Springer still recommends to use eqnarray. I could not believe that, so I went to Book Manuscript Guidelines, choose Manuscript Preparation in LaTeX and downloaded svmult.zip, which contains the Springer class for contributed books, proceedings, and similar. It has a folder called templates, which contains a file author.tex. In this file I could read:

...
% Use this file as a template for your own input.
...
Use the standard \verb|equation| environment to typeset
your equations, e.g.
%
\begin{equation}
a \times b = c\;,
\end{equation}
%
however, for multiline equations we recommend to use the
\verb|eqnarray| environment\footnote{In physics texts
please activate the class option \texttt{vecphys} to depict
your vectors in \textbf{\itshape boldface-italic} type -
as is customary for a wide range of physical subjects}.
\begin{eqnarray}
a \times b = c \nonumber\\
\vec{a} \cdot \vec{b}=\vec{c}
\label{eq:01}
\end{eqnarray}

A close look shows this template doesn’t even align at the relation symbol, which could be done with eqnarray. The example equations are simply right aligned. One could see that in the output if one of those equations would be extended.

eqnarray is considered to be obsolete and faulty, as I wrote 2008 in the comparison eqnarray vs. align. Actually it’s been obsolete since the amsmath package appeared. The better ways are described in its manual, such as using align, gather or multline.

I’m sure most experienced LaTeX users know that fact, and LaTeX beginners are told this frequently in forums and Usenet groups. Why it does not reach Springer? Perhaps this publisher doesn’t really welcome LaTeX for scientific publishing and doesn’t care if his templates are outdated. I wonder what they use then.

06. April 2012 by stefan
Categories: Mathematics | 4 comments

Comments (4)

  1. Some publishers, for unknown reasons, refuse to allow amstex and instead build their own versions of some of its functionality into their templates. For example, the Institute of Physics also recommends eqnarray, but they claim that their templates correct the problems with it. It would be much simpler for authors if everyone just adopted amstex as a standard.

  2. Hi Matt! Which institute is this, do you know a web address of it and its templates?

  3. Hi. I do not know anything about the fact they recommend eqnarray, but I think the first comment refers to IOP (www.iop.org) and their templates can be found here: http://authors.iop.org/atom/usermgmt.nsf/AuthorServices

  4. Springer actually requests LaTeX and took a Word version of my professors publication only with protest.

Leave a Reply to Martin Scharrer Cancel reply

Required fields are marked *