4 discussed point brought up in comment
source | link

There is a line to be drawn regarding which things that you used get to be cited.

What deserves to be cited/mentioned?

  • The experimental hardware? A mention definitely, but a bibliography entry--probably not.
  • The PC you conducted measurements on? If the PC specs are relevant, yes. Again, why would you need to add a bibliography entry for that? If it is specifically mentioned that hardware need to be specified, then supply basic information like: Desktop PC with Intel Core i7 Processor (4x 2.0 GHz) and 4 GB DDR4 RAM.
  • The digital camera you took pictures with? Nobody mentions that. Edit: Apparently, sometimes people do, as salehgeek pointed out in his comment. As for the other points, I was talking about my field (engineering). I have never seen anyone mention the camera they photographed their samples with, but some may do that. Personally, I find it superfluous.
  • The software you used for processing the results? If it does something special (e.g. a simulation tool) yes, but nobody cites Word, Excel or LaTeX in their papers.

In my field (engineering) the machines get mentioned in the experimental part (manufacturer, model). Sometimes exact settings on the machine are provided. Instruction manuals, manufacturer documents/websites are almost never in the bibliography.

The best way for you to know what is accepted is to read related articles and see what the majority does. If it fits with your journal's guidelines, do that.

There is a line to be drawn regarding which things that you used get to be cited.

What deserves to be cited/mentioned?

  • The experimental hardware? A mention definitely, but a bibliography entry--probably not.
  • The PC you conducted measurements on? If the PC specs are relevant, yes. Again, why would you need to add a bibliography entry for that? If it is specifically mentioned that hardware need to be specified, then supply basic information like: Desktop PC with Intel Core i7 Processor (4x 2.0 GHz) and 4 GB DDR4 RAM.
  • The digital camera you took pictures with? Nobody mentions that.
  • The software you used for processing the results? If it does something special (e.g. a simulation tool) yes, but nobody cites Word, Excel or LaTeX in their papers.

In my field (engineering) the machines get mentioned in the experimental part (manufacturer, model). Sometimes exact settings on the machine are provided. Instruction manuals, manufacturer documents/websites are almost never in the bibliography.

The best way for you to know what is accepted is to read related articles and see what the majority does. If it fits with your journal's guidelines, do that.

There is a line to be drawn regarding which things that you used get to be cited.

What deserves to be cited/mentioned?

  • The experimental hardware? A mention definitely, but a bibliography entry--probably not.
  • The PC you conducted measurements on? If the PC specs are relevant, yes. Again, why would you need to add a bibliography entry for that? If it is specifically mentioned that hardware need to be specified, then supply basic information like: Desktop PC with Intel Core i7 Processor (4x 2.0 GHz) and 4 GB DDR4 RAM.
  • The digital camera you took pictures with? Nobody mentions that. Edit: Apparently, sometimes people do, as salehgeek pointed out in his comment. As for the other points, I was talking about my field (engineering). I have never seen anyone mention the camera they photographed their samples with, but some may do that. Personally, I find it superfluous.
  • The software you used for processing the results? If it does something special (e.g. a simulation tool) yes, but nobody cites Word, Excel or LaTeX in their papers.

In my field (engineering) the machines get mentioned in the experimental part (manufacturer, model). Sometimes exact settings on the machine are provided. Instruction manuals, manufacturer documents/websites are almost never in the bibliography.

The best way for you to know what is accepted is to read related articles and see what the majority does. If it fits with your journal's guidelines, do that.

3 Rollback to Revision 1 - Edit approval overridden by post owner or moderator
source | link

There is a line to be drawn regarding which things that you used get to be cited.

What deserves to be cited/mentioned?

  • The experimental hardware? A mention definitely, but a bibliography entry--probably not.
  • The PC you conducted measurements on? If the PC specs are relevant, yes. Again, why would you need to add a bibliography entry for that? If it is specifically mentioned that hardware need to be specified, then supply basic information like: Desktop PC with Intel Core i7 Processor (4x 2.0 GHz) and 4 GB DDR4 RAM.
  • The digital camera you took pictures with? Generally not mentioned, unless some sort of image/color processing is involvedNobody mentions that.

    Digital images of NAA-DBRs were acquired by a mobile phone Sony XperiaTM Z3 Compact equipped with a camera of 20.7 MP (5248 × 3936 pixels) and autofocus function.

    Chen, Yuting, et al. "Rational design of photonic dust from nanoporous anodic alumina films: a versatile photonic nanotool for visual sensing." Scientific reports 5 (2015).

  • The software you used for processing the results? If it does something special (e.g. a simulation tool) yes, but nobody cites Word, Excel or LaTeX in their papers.

In my field (engineering) the machines get mentioned in the experimental part (manufacturer, model). Sometimes exact settings on the machine are provided. Instruction manuals, manufacturer documents/websites are almost never in the bibliography.

The best way for you to know what is accepted is to read related articles and see what the majority does. If it fits with your journal's guidelines, do that.

There is a line to be drawn regarding which things that you used get to be cited.

What deserves to be cited/mentioned?

  • The experimental hardware? A mention definitely, but a bibliography entry--probably not.
  • The PC you conducted measurements on? If the PC specs are relevant, yes. Again, why would you need to add a bibliography entry for that? If it is specifically mentioned that hardware need to be specified, then supply basic information like: Desktop PC with Intel Core i7 Processor (4x 2.0 GHz) and 4 GB DDR4 RAM.
  • The digital camera you took pictures with? Generally not mentioned, unless some sort of image/color processing is involved.

    Digital images of NAA-DBRs were acquired by a mobile phone Sony XperiaTM Z3 Compact equipped with a camera of 20.7 MP (5248 × 3936 pixels) and autofocus function.

    Chen, Yuting, et al. "Rational design of photonic dust from nanoporous anodic alumina films: a versatile photonic nanotool for visual sensing." Scientific reports 5 (2015).

  • The software you used for processing the results? If it does something special (e.g. a simulation tool) yes, but nobody cites Word, Excel or LaTeX in their papers.

In my field (engineering) the machines get mentioned in the experimental part (manufacturer, model). Sometimes exact settings on the machine are provided. Instruction manuals, manufacturer documents/websites are almost never in the bibliography.

The best way for you to know what is accepted is to read related articles and see what the majority does. If it fits with your journal's guidelines, do that.

There is a line to be drawn regarding which things that you used get to be cited.

What deserves to be cited/mentioned?

  • The experimental hardware? A mention definitely, but a bibliography entry--probably not.
  • The PC you conducted measurements on? If the PC specs are relevant, yes. Again, why would you need to add a bibliography entry for that? If it is specifically mentioned that hardware need to be specified, then supply basic information like: Desktop PC with Intel Core i7 Processor (4x 2.0 GHz) and 4 GB DDR4 RAM.
  • The digital camera you took pictures with? Nobody mentions that.
  • The software you used for processing the results? If it does something special (e.g. a simulation tool) yes, but nobody cites Word, Excel or LaTeX in their papers.

In my field (engineering) the machines get mentioned in the experimental part (manufacturer, model). Sometimes exact settings on the machine are provided. Instruction manuals, manufacturer documents/websites are almost never in the bibliography.

The best way for you to know what is accepted is to read related articles and see what the majority does. If it fits with your journal's guidelines, do that.

2 The make and model of the digital camera can sometimes be referenced if deemed necessery.
source | link

There is a line to be drawn regarding which things that you used get to be cited.

What deserves to be cited/mentioned?

  • The experimental hardware? A mention definitely, but a bibliography entry--probably not.
  • The PC you conducted measurements on? If the PC specs are relevant, yes. Again, why would you need to add a bibliography entry for that? If it is specifically mentioned that hardware need to be specified, then supply basic information like: Desktop PC with Intel Core i7 Processor (4x 2.0 GHz) and 4 GB DDR4 RAM.
  • The digital camera you took pictures with? Nobody mentions thatGenerally not mentioned, unless some sort of image/color processing is involved.

    Digital images of NAA-DBRs were acquired by a mobile phone Sony XperiaTM Z3 Compact equipped with a camera of 20.7 MP (5248 × 3936 pixels) and autofocus function.

    Chen, Yuting, et al. "Rational design of photonic dust from nanoporous anodic alumina films: a versatile photonic nanotool for visual sensing." Scientific reports 5 (2015).

  • The software you used for processing the results? If it does something special (e.g. a simulation tool) yes, but nobody cites Word, Excel or LaTeX in their papers.

In my field (engineering) the machines get mentioned in the experimental part (manufacturer, model). Sometimes exact settings on the machine are provided. Instruction manuals, manufacturer documents/websites are almost never in the bibliography.

The best way for you to know what is accepted is to read related articles and see what the majority does. If it fits with your journal's guidelines, do that.

There is a line to be drawn regarding which things that you used get to be cited.

What deserves to be cited/mentioned?

  • The experimental hardware? A mention definitely, but a bibliography entry--probably not.
  • The PC you conducted measurements on? If the PC specs are relevant, yes. Again, why would you need to add a bibliography entry for that? If it is specifically mentioned that hardware need to be specified, then supply basic information like: Desktop PC with Intel Core i7 Processor (4x 2.0 GHz) and 4 GB DDR4 RAM.
  • The digital camera you took pictures with? Nobody mentions that.
  • The software you used for processing the results? If it does something special (e.g. a simulation tool) yes, but nobody cites Word, Excel or LaTeX in their papers.

In my field (engineering) the machines get mentioned in the experimental part (manufacturer, model). Sometimes exact settings on the machine are provided. Instruction manuals, manufacturer documents/websites are almost never in the bibliography.

The best way for you to know what is accepted is to read related articles and see what the majority does. If it fits with your journal's guidelines, do that.

There is a line to be drawn regarding which things that you used get to be cited.

What deserves to be cited/mentioned?

  • The experimental hardware? A mention definitely, but a bibliography entry--probably not.
  • The PC you conducted measurements on? If the PC specs are relevant, yes. Again, why would you need to add a bibliography entry for that? If it is specifically mentioned that hardware need to be specified, then supply basic information like: Desktop PC with Intel Core i7 Processor (4x 2.0 GHz) and 4 GB DDR4 RAM.
  • The digital camera you took pictures with? Generally not mentioned, unless some sort of image/color processing is involved.

    Digital images of NAA-DBRs were acquired by a mobile phone Sony XperiaTM Z3 Compact equipped with a camera of 20.7 MP (5248 × 3936 pixels) and autofocus function.

    Chen, Yuting, et al. "Rational design of photonic dust from nanoporous anodic alumina films: a versatile photonic nanotool for visual sensing." Scientific reports 5 (2015).

  • The software you used for processing the results? If it does something special (e.g. a simulation tool) yes, but nobody cites Word, Excel or LaTeX in their papers.

In my field (engineering) the machines get mentioned in the experimental part (manufacturer, model). Sometimes exact settings on the machine are provided. Instruction manuals, manufacturer documents/websites are almost never in the bibliography.

The best way for you to know what is accepted is to read related articles and see what the majority does. If it fits with your journal's guidelines, do that.

1
source | link