Not My Fault

The online reviews had a familiar ring, and it was not pleasant.

$$Great book, too many errors.$$

$$The errors distracted from the story.$$

$$Was I missing something? Like spelcheck?$$

$$Who published this? A bunch of pre$-$schoolers?$$

$$I think you are missing a line on page $123,$ or else it belongs on page $231.$

$$itt wuz VeRy harrd to reaed $...$

$$Yikes$,$ takes me back to my days as an English teacher!$$

$$Okay$,$ Stephane said, to the project team assembled, $$I guess we shouldn$$t have used a compositor from Russia for this one.$$

$$I personally think it$$s the copy editor,$$ Chris replied.

$$But doesn$$t the author have some responsibility for submitting a readable manuscript?$$ piped up Yuhong.

$$It$$s the number of steps in the process, and lack of accountability,$$ George said as he paced back and forth.

Milad was making a list of all the stages and people along the way who handled the manuscript, and thinking about reliability and redundancy. Where were errors introduced? Where were errors caught?Step $1-$Author: $70\%$more concerned about content

Step $2-$Copy editor: $90\%$usually does a good job

Step $3-$Compositor: $60\%$can introduce errorsStep $4-$Proofreader: $80\%$works with both copies

Step $5-$Author proof: $75\%$mostly answers queries from proofreader

Step $6-$Production: $80\%$could ignore$/$misplace corrections

Step $7-$Final proof: $50\%$time$-$constrained; skims

Assume that each step in Milad$$s list is performed in sequence. What is the reliability of the process?

Assume steps $1,3,$ and $6$ are the components of the process, and $2,4,5,$ and $7$ are backups to catch errors. What is the reliability of the process?

What suggestions do you have for improving the reliability of the publishing process and final product?