Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Hi Helmut,

❝ Not only that one is an insult to an eye trained in typography. Just have a look at the tables…

I know. The horizontal lines of the tables are so thick that I'm almost sure that I can pick them up and beat the publisher with them... But I tried not to judge the excellent content with the not-so-fortunate appearance. But the letter spacing on that page is something that jumped out and hit me when I glimpsed quickly, hence the only complain.

❝ Manuscripts have to be submitted in fucking M$-Word format. Duno which limit was used for automatic hyphenation of 84.5 mm columns. 1 cm?

TeX's hyphenation algorithm is the best, no doubt.

❝ This is what we submitted (bullet points left-aligned and content in grouped style with left intend):

❝ ...

❝ And that’s the result:

❝ ...

What a shame...

A nitpicking if allowed, the convention seems to be that for descriptive subscript, the symbols should be upright Roman. "max" in Cmax is descriptive, so it should be upright, not in italic