Editage Blog
The word fewer is used much less frequently than the word less; the Cambridge Guide to English Usage, in fact, goes so far as to maintain that the choice between fewer and less “is essentially a stylistic choice, between the more formal fewer and the more spontaneous less” [1].
The adjective little has two comparative forms – fewer and less – depending on whether the noun next to it is counted (a count noun) or measured (a mass noun): few samples, few trees, few occasions but less weight, less vegetation, less salty.
However, the distinction is not always so clear. For example, less is also used in expressing time, distance, and money because the notion is that of a total amount and not separate pieces as it were, as illustrated in the following examples: it took less time because we travelled faster; we covered less distance because the road was bad; it costs less to replace an item than to repair it. Fewer, on the other hand, is used when the components that make up the whole have distinct identities or are counted separately: the experiment was terminated a few minutes earlier than the scheduled time; the rope was a few centimetres shorter than the required length; the amount was paid using a few high-denomination notes and a few coins.
It you think these distinctions too subtle, take heart from the usage note in the latest edition of the Oxford Dictionary of English [2]: “It is regarded as incorrect in standard English to use less with count nouns, as in less people or less words, although this is one of the most widespread errors made by native speakers.”
[1] Peters P. 2004. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, p. 205. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 608 pp.
[2] The Oxford Dictionary of English, 3rd edition (2010), p. 646. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2069 pp.
["Publish and prosper" is a series of posts about tips for researchers whose first language is not English but who submit papers to journals published in English. The series touches upon not only writing (spelling, grammar, punctuation, usage, and style) but everything else relevant to publishing research papers that journal editors wish their authors knew.]
Most researchers consider citing references within text correctly and appending a matching list of references at the end of a research paper as tedious chores. A recent study [1] focused on erroneous references in a single journal and found errors in about one-fifth of the references.
In text, references, or sources of information, are cited either by numbers (sometimes referred to as the Vancouver method) or by names of authors and the year of publication (the Harvard method). This post is about a few minor matters of details of citing references by numbers.
Although citing references by numbers appears to be self-explanatory, there are a few matters of detail, which are listed below. Examine your target journal and format the citations to match the way they are printed in the target journal.
Position of the number (superscript or normal). Check whether the journal uses superscripts for numbered citations. Some journals use superscripts; others print the numbers normally (“in line” numbers).
Surrounding punctuation. Typically, when citation numbers are printed normally, they are enclosed in square brackets (as in this blog post) or in round brackets or parentheses (EndNote, a software package to handle references, typically uses such round brackets). Superscript numbers, on the other hand, are not so enclosed.
Placement. Some journals print citation numbers immediately after the full stop; some journals place them immediately before it. Similarly, when citation numbers appear within a sentence, they are usually placed before a colon or a semicolon but after a comma.
Multiple citations. Separate multiple citations, so long as they are not consecutive, with commas; do not insert a space after a comma (2,5,9 and not 2, 5, 9). Separate two consecutive numbers with an unspaced comma (7,8 and not 7, 8) but indicate a range of consecutive numbers with the en dash (2,5,9–11).
[1] Mertens S and Baethge C. 2011. The virtues of correct citation: careful referencing is important but is often neglected even in peer reviewed journals. Deutsches Ärzeblatt International 33: 550–552 [Deutsches Ärzeblatt International is the official journal of the German Medical Association.]
["Publish and prosper" is a series of posts about tips for researchers whose first language is not English but who submit papers to journals published in English. The series touches upon not only writing (spelling, grammar, punctuation, usage, and style) but everything else relevant to publishing research papers that journal editors wish their authors knew.]
As a matter of style, most journals advise authors not to start any sentence with an abbreviation or a number. However, acronyms are generally acceptable in that position, either because they are words in their own right (such as laser and radar) or represent names of organizations (such as NASA and CERN).
In the “Results” section of a typical research paper, you may find it convenient to begin sentences with numbers, as in “15% of the plants survived” or “48% of the patients recovered.” In such cases, either spell out the numbers, as in “Fifteen per cent of the plants . . .” or “Forty-eight per cent of the patients . . .” or rephrase the sentences, as in “Of the treated plants, 15% survived” or “Nearly half (48%) the patients recovered.” Incidentally, “per cent” (two words) is the more common form in the UK whereas most US publishers prefer “percent.”
The same advice applies to abbreviations at the beginning of sentences: either spell out the abbreviation in full or rephrase. With scientific names, it is common to abbreviate the genus to its first letter after the first mention so long as only one genus is being represented (Aspergillus niger at first mention and A. niger thereafter, for example). However, it is better to spell out the genus in full at the beginning of a sentence.
["Publish and prosper" is a series of posts about tips for researchers whose first language is not English but who submit papers to journals published in English. The series touches upon not only writing (spelling, grammar, punctuation, usage, and style) but everything else relevant to publishing research papers that journal editors wish their authors knew.]
Japan once again heads the Nature Publishing Index Asia-Pacific, ahead of China, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. This index ranks institutions and countries based on the number of papers published in all Nature journals. The report detailing the 2011 index was published on March 15, 2012, and celebrates Japan’s success despite the many adversities it faced in 2011, particularly the devastating earthquake and tsunami.
Japan’s output of articles published in Nature journals increased by 37% since 2010. Japanese institutions account for 4 of the top 5 institutions that published in Nature journals in 2011, and 7 of the top 10. The University of Tokyo heads the list, with Kyoto University coming in second. What’s more, The University of Tokyo ranks an impressive 5th place in the Nature Publishing Index Global Top 100 (institutions). Japan as a whole had the third highest number of publications in Nature journals worldwide in 2011, behind the US and the UK.
Publications in Nature-branded journals are among the most prestigious in the world. The Nature Publishing Index is a good measure to highlight the high level of world-class research produced in Japan.
Science is not just about numbers but about comparing numbers: you have treatment or treatments and you have a control or controls, and comparing the two sets tells us whether the treatment (a new method, artificial light, high or low temperature, and so on) is better (than the currently used method, natural light, average temperature, and so on).
In describing the results of such experiments, researchers often use the construction less . . . than, as in “The new method was less expensive than the new method” or “Plants grown under artificial light took less time to flower than those grown under natural light.”
However, the above examples can be re-written on a positive note – and in fewer words – by replacing “less than” with a suitable adverb, as follows: “The new method was cheaper . . .” or “Plants grown under artificial light flowered sooner . . .” Sanford [1] supports the recommendation: “In general, it is supposed that the processing of sentences containing a negative marker takes longer because sentences are coded primarily in terms of a positive assertion. Negating this, through a marker, is a time consuming extra process.”
[1] Sanford A J. 1999. Word meaning and discourse processing: a tutorial view, p. 326 in Language Processing, edited by S Garrod and M Pickering. Hove, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
["Publish and prosper" is a series of posts about tips for researchers whose first language is not English but who submit papers to journals published in English. The series touches upon not only writing (spelling, grammar, punctuation, usage, and style) but everything else relevant to publishing research papers that journal editors wish their authors knew.]
The last part of a table is usually labelled Source or Sources and gives details of the source of data given in the table. If no source is mentioned, it is assumed that the data are the author’s own. Different publishers prescribe different styles for the word: the Chicago Manual of Style, for instance, recommends printing the word in italics and placing a colon after it [1]; some publishers set the word in small capitals; some set it in bold. Also, some publishers set the word in a separate line whereas some do not. Observe how your target journal handles this and use that style.
Information about the source or sources may be limited to only a citation, either numbered or in the author-and-year style, with more details given under the heading references. Alternatively, full details of the source may be supplied, as in Source: Bandyopadhyay S. 2011. Solar energy storage: technology and sizing, p. 87 (Table 4) in A Solar Future for India, edited by G M Pillai, Pune, India: World Institute of Sustainable Energy.
If a table published by somebody else is reproduced in full, merely giving a reference is not enough: permission to reproduce the table must be obtained from the copyright holder and the fact mentioned in the source note, as in “Reproduced from Bandyopadhyay (2011) by permission of the author” (if the author holds the copyright) or “by permission of the World Institute of Sustainable Energy” (if, in the above example, the publisher holds the copyright).
If a published table has been modified, the acknowledgement takes the form “modified from” or “adapted from” or “recalculated from” as appropriate. Sometimes, data in different columns or rows come from different sources. If so, the fact can be indicated either with appropriate footnotes by placing the footnote markers after the column- or row-headings or appended to the citation of or reference to each source, as in “Tanaka 2011 (data on current costs of photovoltaic cells); Smith 2012 (data on current tariffs for electricity)" and so on.
This series (presenting data in the form of a table) of posts has discussed different parts of a table of numbers in some detail. Tables pack a great deal of information in limited space and therefore deserve greater attention from authors.
[1] The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edn (2011), p. 147.
["Publish and prosper" is a series of posts about tips for researchers whose first language is not English but who submit papers to journals published in English. The series touches upon not only writing (spelling, grammar, punctuation, usage, and style) but everything else relevant to publishing research papers that journal editors wish their authors knew.]
The use of figures and tables as adjuncts to text is common in research papers. These adjuncts supplement the text: figures, for example, can convey information that may be impossible to convey through words, and tables can present data more efficiently than text. Readers of research papers know this. In fact, in leafing through a document, readers often stop at tables or figures to get a sense of what the document is about.
Figures, tables, appendixes, and similar adjuncts are numbered and referred to in the accompanying text by their numbers; readers are familiar with this convention and do not need to be specifically asked to consult such adjuncts through explicit instructions. Authors are well-advised to say something about the table or the figure when it is mentioned, as in "Seeds germinated faster when incubated at temperatures higher than 25 °C (Table 2)" or "One of the adverse side effect of the drug was skin rash (Figure 6)" and leave the rest to the reader rather than employ such expressions as ""See Table 2," "Refer to Figure 6," and "Turn to Appendix A."
["Publish and prosper" is a series of posts about tips for researchers whose first language is not English but who submit papers to journals published in English. The series touches upon not only writing (spelling, grammar, punctuation, usage, and style) but everything else relevant to publishing research papers that journal editors wish their authors knew.]
Footnotes to a table draw attention to exceptions or some additional or qualifying information: what normally applies to all the cells in a given column or row does not apply to the cell marked with a footnote. This post discusses the mechanics of calling attention to such cells: what footnote markers to use, where to place them, how to format and align them, and how to explain, at the foot of a table, what each given marker means.
Choosing a footnote marker In a data table, that is a table that consists mostly of numbers, it is best to use letters of the alphabet as footnote markers: if footnotes are marked with superscript numbers and the numbers lose their formatting, there is every chance of the footnote markers becoming part of the data. For the same reason, it is better to use superscript numbers in tables that consist of text.
Reference marks such as the asterisk or the star (*), the obelisk or the dagger (†), and the pilcrow or the paragraph mark (¶) were also commonly used as footnote markers but are not as common today. Besides, such marks also have other meanings: the asterisk, for example, is used to indicate the level of probability (* for 0.05, ** for 0.01, and *** for 0.001).
The sequence of footnote markers Assign the markers in the normal reading sequence, that is from left to right as the readers work their way down a table. For instance, if two cells in the second row are to be marked, one in the third column and another in the fifth column, the cell in the third column will be tagged as a and the one in the fifth column will be tagged as b; the next cell to be marked, say in the seventh row, will be tagged c even if it is in the first column.
Formatting the footnote markers Footnote markers in a data table must stand out among the mass of numbers. Therefore, make each marker a superscript and bold so that it is conspicuous and make it italic so that it leans away from the number it qualifies (compare a and a).
Explaining footnotes Footnotes to a table appear at the foot of the table, not at the foot of the page on which the table appears. Secondly, footnotes may be run together in sequence (Table 1) or each footnote may begin a fresh line. (Observe how this is handled in the target journal.)
Some journals reproduce footnote markers exactly as they appear in the body of the table (Table 1) whereas some journals change them from superscripts to ‘in line' characters, that is as normal and not superscripts. The text of the footnote may start with a capital letter or with a lowercase letter (footnotes b and c in Table 1). It is common to insert a very thin space between the marker and the text that follows (Table 1).
Table 1 Weather in March in six major cities of the world
|
City |
Minimum temp. (°C) |
Maximum temp. (°C) |
Rainfall (mm) |
|
Canberra |
10.7 |
24.4 |
52.6 |
|
Londona |
3.8 |
10.3 |
48.0 |
|
Nairobi |
13.1 |
25.6 |
92.8 |
|
New Delhib |
15.4 |
29.7 |
14.7 |
|
Tokyo |
5.6 |
13.3 |
117.5c |
|
Washington, DC |
3.2 |
13.6 |
80.5 |
a Heathrow Airport b domestic airport c extrapolated from earlier data
["Publish and prosper" is a series of posts about tips for researchers whose first language is not English but who submit papers to journals published in English. The series touches upon not only writing (spelling, grammar, punctuation, usage, and style) but everything else relevant to publishing research papers that journal editors wish their authors knew.]
Given the scientist's preoccupation with counting and measuring, numbers are important in any scientific text-but that importance does not justify using mathematical operators such as <,>, +, and ÷ in plain text, as in "At wind speeds <9 km/h, power generation is likely to be adequate" or "The sample comprised soil + roots."
Mathematical operators are invariably used in equations but look out of place in running text because readers do not expect to encounter such symbols in the midst of text. After all, "more than" and "less than" are perfectly adequate substitutes for the corresponding symbols. Some readers may even consider the use of symbols as an inappropriate shortcut.
["Publish and prosper" is a series of posts about tips for researchers whose first language is not English but who submit papers to journals published in English. The series touches upon not only writing (spelling, grammar, punctuation, usage, and style) but everything else relevant to publishing research papers that journal editors wish their authors knew.]
Tables organize data systematically, but it is important to know what system a given table uses. For instance, population figures may be given for each country or for each decade or split into different age-groups, and data on the prevalence of diseases may be shown in terms of causes (bacterial diseases, viral diseases, fungal diseases, and so on), classified into chronic and acute diseases, or grouped on the basis of affected organs (heart diseases, respiratory diseases, skin diseases, and so on).
The simple preposition to indicate how a table is organized is by. The Oxford Dictionary of English [1] gives one of the senses of by as "identifying a parameter" (p. 240) and goes on to illustrate this sense with the phrase "a breakdown of employment figures by age and occupation" - just the adverb to serve the purpose being discussed in this post.
However, some authors attach the suffix wise to the noun that names the subject of the table, as in "Age- and occupation-wise breakdown of employment" or "Yearwise production of milk." However, wise as a suffix refers to the manner or aspect (clockwise and lengthwise, for example), which is not the sense that is required in titles of tables or in column headings. And even when used as an adverb of manner, "most of the words so formed are considered inelegant or not good English style" (Oxford Dictionary of English, p. 2020). Robert Burchfield [2], in The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, adds that "fastidious speakers treat it [such use of wise] with mild disdain" (p. 852).
[1] The Oxford Dictionary of English, 3rd edn (2011). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[2] Burchfield R W (ed.). 1996. The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, 3rd edn, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
["Publish and prosper" is a series of posts about tips for researchers whose first language is not English but who submit papers to journals published in English. The series touches upon not only writing (spelling, grammar, punctuation, usage, and style) but everything else relevant to publishing research papers that journal editors wish their authors knew.]
Popular content
Resources
15%Off!
The most meticulous study may be rejected if the Discussion is not impressive. Learn to write a Discussion that will do justice to your research.