1

There is a paper that has used entropy feature in the beta band for subject classification and obtained a specific accuracy value. I am aware that there is no context here, but I put these minimal information just to explain my problem. Now I have two subsections under the "Literature Review" chapter in my thesis. In the first subsection, I am exploring frequency bands' effect on the accuracy and I reviewed the mentioned paper's results. In another subsection, I am dealing with the effect of complexity-based features on the accuracy, so again I need to review that paper again. I can't just split the feature and frequency band information in two and report them separately under the two sections because it harms the understanding of the review. What can I do here? Repeating the review, although with different emphasis, seems redundant. And cross-referencing inconveniently interrupts the flow of the text for the reader.

2 Answers 2

2

Repeating yourself for the sake of clarity is not redundancy. Redundancy is repeating yourself needlessly.

The scenario that you have described seems to me to be a very well justified case for reviewing the same paper twice in two different sections. In one section, you should emphasize frequency bands, and in the other section emphasize complexity-based features. And it is quite appropriate to briefly refer back to the paper so that the attentive reviewer knows that you are quite aware that you are referring to the same paper twice, albeit from slightly different angles. So, for example, you could begin the second time with something like, "Authors (20xx), whom we discussed in our section on frequency bands, also analyzed complexity-based features and they found that …".

3
  • Um, but there is no "also". In the first subsection I reported like "authors used entropy feature in 5 frequency bands where beta band gave the best result of 98% accuracy". Now in the next subsection I may write "authors used entropy features in beta band and obtained 98% accuracy". So, these two are not redundant, are they? Nov 25, 2021 at 17:41
  • I would think that you should comment somewhat more than that on each article in a literature review that is long enough to have multiple sections. In any case, if that is all there is, then the second time, you could say something like, "As mentioned earlier, Authors used entropy features in beta band and obtained 98% accuracy". Again, I assume that the repetition is necessary, as you said in your question. If it is necessary, then it is not redundant.
    – Tripartio
    Nov 25, 2021 at 19:09
  • Well I didn't make a comprehensive review (only reported the relevant results), therefore they are short. In that case, I will repeat and cross-reference at the same time. Thanks. Nov 25, 2021 at 19:38
0

"Repeating the review, although with different emphasis, seems redundant" but it is not, because you are tackling a different aspect and you do not want to cross-reference.

So, either you are redundant (which is not always a bad thing) or you are cross-referencing.

3
  • It is hard to see how this answers the question. It might be better converted to a comment unless you expand it.
    – Buffy
    Nov 25, 2021 at 14:38
  • @buffy feel free to offer a third way, to downvote the answer or to take whatever action is deemed reasonable by the Academics here contributing.
    – user149718
    Nov 25, 2021 at 14:40
  • Actually, I'd like to see it improved, not downvotes, but I don't understand your intent.
    – Buffy
    Nov 25, 2021 at 14:45

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .