# Explicit line spacing in revtex 4

I am required to use 13pt line spacing for a report and want to use revtex 4 as document class. However, I am not able to set the line spacing explicitly.

-
Are you using the most recent version: revtex4-1? Also, you want to keep the regular font size, but just change the spacing or \baselineskip? –  Werner Mar 5 '12 at 19:03
I am currently using font size 11pt with the optional argument tightenlines and revtex4 because revtex4-1 conflicts with the algorithmic package on my machine. –  Till Hoffmann Mar 5 '12 at 19:05
If you are preparing a document for publication, then I suggest moving to revtex4-1 and finding an alternative to algorithmic. Quick tests have shown that algorithmicx works, although probably not in an algorithm environment. It should be trivial to use the float package to bootstrap one though. If you are not preparing a document for journal publication, then I recommend avoiding REVTeX altogether because problems like this will really plague you. –  qubyte Mar 6 '12 at 2:14
Thank you for the hints. The current version is not for publication (hence the odd restrictions) but the document will eventually be published such that I am trying to stick to revtex to minimise the overhead. Trying \baselineskip didn't work for the revtex4-1 document though. –  Till Hoffmann Mar 6 '12 at 10:57

It seems that revtex4 uses a definition of \normalsize equal to that of the standard classes, namely, a line spacing of 13.6pt for the 11pt font size option. If you only want to change the line spacing of \normalsize, you may use the etoolbox package to patch this command (replace "13.6" with "13"). If you want to change the line spacing of all font size commands, use \linespread{0.956} (13/13.6).

\documentclass[11pt,tightenlines]{revtex4}

% Alternative A
% \usepackage{etoolbox}
% \patchcmd{\normalsize}{13.6}{13}{}{}

% Alternative B

\usepackage{lipsum}

\begin{document}

\lipsum[1]

\end{document}

-
I'd go with \linespread that will proportionally affect all other sizes. –  egreg Mar 5 '12 at 22:16
@egreg On second thought, I'd go with it, too. :-) –  lockstep Mar 5 '12 at 22:18
That worked perfectly, thank you! –  Till Hoffmann Mar 5 '12 at 23:07