While writing the literature review section, I am confused about which tense should I use (past, present perfect, or present) while referring to other people's work.

I understand that established facts are presented in the present tense. Work done is presented in past or present-perfect tense. But in what tense should I define their (i) system model, (ii) experiments, and (iii) results so that the overall picture remains coherent and it does not seem like I am jumping from one tense to another?

What is the basis for using any of these tenses?


I present established facts in present tense, indeed. Other people's work that has led to these facts is presented in past or present-perfect. So for example: "Snippert et al. established a confetti mouse-line, and after doxycyclin administration showed that intestinal crypts tend towards clonality."

  • To do this, you do need to know what counts as an 'established fact' and what is just the latest theory. The history of science is littered with 'established facts' that no-one now believes. The Greek word hubris describes the attitude summarised thus: "Back then they thought X, but now we know Y". In truth Y is just the latest theory; it could be overturned tomorrow. These thoughts suggest to me that a sprinkling of "generally accepted" and such-like phrases would be prudent.
    – JeremyC
    Nov 23 '18 at 23:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.