For example, let's say you use a well-excepted data normalization method like z-normalization. To avoid clutter and help the flow of the paper, can you simply cite a source for z-normalization and move on, or will reviewers generally want to see everything formally defined in the paper itself? This assumes there is only one possible version of the technique being mentioned (if there were multiple, I would see why a full description would be needed).
1
-
5Does this answer your question? For most journals, do peer reviewers expect common notions such as arithmetic mean to be formally defined?– GoodDeedsCommented Apr 26, 2021 at 22:18
Add a comment
|
4 Answers
It depends entirely on the specific journal you publish in, as well as the topic of your paper. The paper is meant to be read by other experts in your field: hence if something is well known, it doesn't need to be defined. For the average reader of your paper, will they already know what z-normalization is? If so, you don't need to define it.
There is no need to repeat well known information. A citation is enough. Not every paper is a dissertation.
Often the name alone is enough.
It really depends on which journal you're submitting your manuscript to. Probably a good heuristic is to have a look at past publications on the same journal, maybe the top-cited ones.
If you feel a reference isn't sufficient, depending on the journal, you may have room for an appendix, or a methods section.
