The big issue here are not the hyphens, other than maintaining formatting for different devices the publisher should not mess with the content after an author approved edit.
Traditionally there was the copy editing process done by the publisher, but automating this on a the-customer-is-always-right process would probably have left a lot of hard to digest classics no where to be found.
And seriously? Running a work of literature against a dictionary for other reasons than supervised spell-checking?
Literature is about expressiveness not about serfdom to grammar or spelling.
There surely still is a need for copy editing, proper formatting and layout, which was almost never done by the author alone, and also requires a different skill set than that of a typical author. These are the services a publisher should offer, but doing this without involving the author for final approval is just false.
A traditional publisher would have most likely turned any random author down in the first place as it was the norm throughout the history of publishing with high initial costs and a few publishing houses functioning as gatekeepers.
Then there were the so called (vanity) self-publishing houses who more or less capitalized on the rejects, while asking for a quite significant amount of money first to print and rudimentary, if at all, edit whatever the author offered. Here the gatekeepeíng factor to the public was how much money you had to spare to get your books printed and listed.
Nowadays with digital publishing the initial production costs are so low, that suddenly copy editing and proofreading by a person other than the author becomes a significant part of the costs, which it wasn't before, since that cost was dwarfed by the actual printing costs and was normally considered a given.
With no money to spare for third-party editors/proofreaders/layout this job is outsourced to algorithms and mechanical Turks with questionable results.
I suggest the best way to improve quality and acceptance of self-published work, is to actually pay a professional third-party person to proofread and copy edit your book first in a joint effort with the author. Only after that you should submit your work to a digital publisher. If amazon then still rejects this, based on customer complaints than we have an actual problem at hand which is not just the absence of any kind of human copy editing.
---
Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very;' your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be.
— Mark Twain
Traditionally there was the copy editing process done by the publisher, but automating this on a the-customer-is-always-right process would probably have left a lot of hard to digest classics no where to be found.
And seriously? Running a work of literature against a dictionary for other reasons than supervised spell-checking?
Literature is about expressiveness not about serfdom to grammar or spelling.
What about Neologisms? There would be no nerds without inventive authors like Seuss. http://flavorwire.com/291507/everyday-words-that-were-invent...
---
There surely still is a need for copy editing, proper formatting and layout, which was almost never done by the author alone, and also requires a different skill set than that of a typical author. These are the services a publisher should offer, but doing this without involving the author for final approval is just false.
---
see also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solecism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malapropism also Cacography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catachresis