4 deleted 70 characters in body
source | link

The style guide of the publication may give the definitive answer.

As was mentioned in a comment, the IEEE Editorial Style Manual (p. 5) says

Grammatically, they may be treated as if they were footnote numbers, e.g.,

as shown by Brown [4], [5]; as mentioned earlier [2], [4]–[7], [9]; Smith [4] and Brown and Jones [5]; Wood et al. [7]

or as nouns:

as demonstrated in [3]; according to [4] and [6]–[9].

The style guide of the publication may give the definitive answer.

As was mentioned in a comment, the IEEE Editorial Style Manual (p. 5) says

Grammatically, they may be treated as if they were footnote numbers, e.g.,

as shown by Brown [4], [5]; as mentioned earlier [2], [4]–[7], [9]; Smith [4] and Brown and Jones [5]; Wood et al. [7]

or as nouns:

as demonstrated in [3]; according to [4] and [6]–[9].

As was mentioned in a comment, the IEEE Editorial Style Manual (p. 5) says

Grammatically, they may be treated as if they were footnote numbers, e.g.,

as shown by Brown [4], [5]; as mentioned earlier [2], [4]–[7], [9]; Smith [4] and Brown and Jones [5]; Wood et al. [7]

or as nouns:

as demonstrated in [3]; according to [4] and [6]–[9].

3 deleted 2 characters in body
source | link

This is usually answered by theThe style guide of the publication may give the definitive answer.

As has beenwas mentioned in a comment, the IEEE Editorial Style Manual (p. 5) says

Grammatically, they may be treated as if they were footnote numbers, e.g.,

as shown by Brown [4], [5]; as mentioned earlier [2], [4]–[7], [9]; Smith [4] and Brown and Jones [5]; Wood et al. [7]

or as nouns:

as demonstrated in [3]; according to [4] and [6]–[9].

This is usually answered by the style guide of the publication.

As has been mentioned in a comment, the IEEE Editorial Style Manual (p. 5) says

Grammatically, they may be treated as if they were footnote numbers, e.g.,

as shown by Brown [4], [5]; as mentioned earlier [2], [4]–[7], [9]; Smith [4] and Brown and Jones [5]; Wood et al. [7]

or as nouns:

as demonstrated in [3]; according to [4] and [6]–[9].

The style guide of the publication may give the definitive answer.

As was mentioned in a comment, the IEEE Editorial Style Manual (p. 5) says

Grammatically, they may be treated as if they were footnote numbers, e.g.,

as shown by Brown [4], [5]; as mentioned earlier [2], [4]–[7], [9]; Smith [4] and Brown and Jones [5]; Wood et al. [7]

or as nouns:

as demonstrated in [3]; according to [4] and [6]–[9].

2 added 61 characters in body
source | link

This is usually answered by the style guide of the publication.

As has been mentioned in a comment, but the IEEE Editorial Style Manual (p. 5) says

Grammatically, they may be treated as if they were footnote numbers, e.g.,

as shown by Brown [4], [5]; as mentioned earlier [2], [4]–[7], [9]; Smith [4] and Brown and Jones [5]; Wood et al. [7]

or as nouns:

as demonstrated in [3]; according to [4] and [6]–[9].

This has been mentioned in a comment, but the IEEE Editorial Style Manual (p. 5) says

Grammatically, they may be treated as if they were footnote numbers, e.g.,

as shown by Brown [4], [5]; as mentioned earlier [2], [4]–[7], [9]; Smith [4] and Brown and Jones [5]; Wood et al. [7]

or as nouns:

as demonstrated in [3]; according to [4] and [6]–[9].

This is usually answered by the style guide of the publication.

As has been mentioned in a comment, the IEEE Editorial Style Manual (p. 5) says

Grammatically, they may be treated as if they were footnote numbers, e.g.,

as shown by Brown [4], [5]; as mentioned earlier [2], [4]–[7], [9]; Smith [4] and Brown and Jones [5]; Wood et al. [7]

or as nouns:

as demonstrated in [3]; according to [4] and [6]–[9].

1
source | link