Skip to main content
Formatting; some structure; removing unfitting tags (terminolgy is about the terminology of academia, not about about dealing with scientific terminology); what you use for the title is called *title case,* not regular capitalisation.
Source Link
Wrzlprmft
  • 65k
  • 18
  • 199
  • 307

I have two new terms that I introduce in my paper. "Resource Security": resource security and "CerberOS"CerberOS (the second is the name of the system).

  I use these terms in the title, abstract and body. How and where is emphasis best placed?

For the title I use regular capitalization: "CerberOS: Resource Security and Sharing for IoT Devices"

For the abstract, at the moment, I'm italicizing but not capitalizing 'resource security' at first usage. (i.e., "bla bla bla ... \textit{resource security}." and italicizing CerberOS on first usage (i.e., we made \textit{CerberOS} ).How and where is emphasis best placed?

And I was thinking of doing the same for the body.

  • For the title, I use title case:

    CerberOS: Resource Security and Sharing for IoT Devices

  • For the abstract, at the moment, I’m italicizing but not capitalizing resource security at first usage, i.e.:

    bla bla bla ... resource security.

    I am italicizing CerberOS on first usage, i.e.:

    We made CerberOS.

  • I was thinking of doing the same for the body.

Is this too aggressive with the emphasis for the abstract? I was also thinking of capitalizing, but that is even more emphasis. Perhaps only capitalize resource securityresource security in the body?

I have two new terms that I introduce in my paper. "Resource Security" and "CerberOS" (the second is the name of the system).

  I use these terms in the title, abstract and body. How and where is emphasis best placed?

For the title I use regular capitalization: "CerberOS: Resource Security and Sharing for IoT Devices"

For the abstract, at the moment, I'm italicizing but not capitalizing 'resource security' at first usage. (i.e., "bla bla bla ... \textit{resource security}." and italicizing CerberOS on first usage (i.e., we made \textit{CerberOS} ).

And I was thinking of doing the same for the body.

Is this too aggressive with the emphasis for the abstract? I was also thinking of capitalizing, but that is even more emphasis. Perhaps only capitalize resource security in the body?

I have two new terms that I introduce in my paper: resource security and CerberOS (the second is the name of the system). I use these terms in the title, abstract and body. How and where is emphasis best placed?

  • For the title, I use title case:

    CerberOS: Resource Security and Sharing for IoT Devices

  • For the abstract, at the moment, I’m italicizing but not capitalizing resource security at first usage, i.e.:

    bla bla bla ... resource security.

    I am italicizing CerberOS on first usage, i.e.:

    We made CerberOS.

  • I was thinking of doing the same for the body.

Is this too aggressive with the emphasis for the abstract? I was also thinking of capitalizing, but that is even more emphasis. Perhaps only capitalize resource security in the body?

Source Link

Emphasis on new terminology in technical paper: title, abstract and body

I have two new terms that I introduce in my paper. "Resource Security" and "CerberOS" (the second is the name of the system).

I use these terms in the title, abstract and body. How and where is emphasis best placed?

For the title I use regular capitalization: "CerberOS: Resource Security and Sharing for IoT Devices"

For the abstract, at the moment, I'm italicizing but not capitalizing 'resource security' at first usage. (i.e., "bla bla bla ... \textit{resource security}." and italicizing CerberOS on first usage (i.e., we made \textit{CerberOS} ).

And I was thinking of doing the same for the body.

Is this too aggressive with the emphasis for the abstract? I was also thinking of capitalizing, but that is even more emphasis. Perhaps only capitalize resource security in the body?