0

In my current paper I describe two methods for solving a problem in different ways. Both have advantages and disadvantages. At the end of the paper I would like to compare the two methodologies with a table. So far it looks something like this:

 -------------------------------------------------
|           |     Method 1     |     Method 2    |
--------------------------------------------------
|Critera 1: |    very good     |       good      |
|Critera 2: | satisfactorily   |     very good   |
|Critera 3: |    very good     |       good      |
--------------------------------------------------

How would you manage that? Is such a table scientifically accepted?

1
  • 3
    Btw it's criterion (singular) or criteria (plural); and "satisfactorily" is an adverb, you probably mean "satisfactory", the adjective. – Erwan Nov 25 '18 at 13:43
3

Assuming that your paper describes the two methods in details (including the reasons why criterion X with method Y is assigned level Z in the table), I'd say yes, it makes perfect sense to provide this kind of table as a synthesis at the end of the paper. I would suggest adding cross-references in each cell, so that the reader can go see the details in the appropriate section for each case, e.g. "good (see §3.1)".

1

I see two issues.

  1. You'd need to establish methodology in any case.
  2. Wouldn't you have hard numbers? For example,

                 | Crab (1879) | Squarepants et al. (2017) | Squidward et al. (2018) | our method
    Criterion 1  | 1.89        | 2.45                      | 2.37                    | 2.5 
    Criterion 2  | 9.89        | 10.11                     | 5.55                    | 11.02 
    Criterion 3  | 33.3        | 44.44                     | 20.1                    | 49.8
    

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.