Is there a difference between a galley and an advance reader copy? Any shared knowledge would be appreciated!
Galley-proofs were a set of untrimmed and unbound pages which we used to check for any last-minute corrections that needed to be made. This is where the term "proof-reading" comes from.
Very few publishers use paper galleys now: it's all done on-screen.
The purpose of a galley is to look for final corrections, to ensure that the book is as clean and tight as it can be once it's published.
ARCs are bound copies or e-books, but they're not usually the final version of the book: the text is often either unedited or edited but not yet copy-edited; the jacket design isn't usually the final one; the sales copy on the back of the book is often absent, or replaced by quotes from early readers.
ARCs are used to get reviews for the book, to get quotes from established writers or celebrities to help sell the book once it's published, and for various other sales purposes.
As production methods have changed and new technology has been introduced to the publishing process the two things--galleys and ARCs--have become closer in nature: galleys are used to produce ARCs, but I'd hope that publishers would do all they could to make the ARCs look as enticing as possible before sending them out, as they are meant to be an early sales tool, after all.
ARCs are bound copies or e-books, but they're not usually the final version of the book: the text is often either unedited or edited but not yet copy-edited; the jacket design isn't usually the final one; the sales copy on the back of the book is often absent, or replaced by quotes from early readers.
I believe the picture book industry still uses paper galleys (F&Gs - folded and gathered pages) to proof the art with the text. This is because they have to be sure nothing important is lost in the fold/binding (The actual term is escaping me.) and that color stays true and the text is readable against the image. Again, I am not 100% certain on this. F&Gs may in fact be a third step in the process. Perhaps someone will correct or confirm.
Actually I kinda liked this because it meant I was reading slightly differently -- not on the screen -- which helped me pick up those last couple of errors.