4

I want to specify in my paper an exact methodology developed by another author and explained in the suplementary material of a Science's paper. The problem is that I already have my own supplementary material's section, formated in the same fashion, and want to avoid confusion. I have tried something on the lines of:

Therefore, we regarded the results as likely noise and following XXXXX et. al. (2012) methodology (Supplementary material S3.3. (XXXXX, et. al. (2012)) proceeded to reanalize the data.

Citing XXXXXX's paper twice seems cumbersome and out of style, but if I write instead:

Therefore, we regarded the results as likely noise and following XXXXX et. al. (2012) methodology (Supplementary material S3.3.) proceeded to reanalize the data.

i feel people might get confused and turn to section 3.3. of MY supplementary material, where they, of course, will find something utterly different.

How can I be clear enough that readers should look at XXXXXX's Supplementary material and not mine while keeping the readability of my paper?

  • Is it common to adress the Supporting information of a paper specifically? In chemistry you just cite the paper. – DSVA Jan 11 '17 at 21:33
  • 1
    @DSVA For the sake of clarity, I think it is, at least, good practice. – j91 Jan 12 '17 at 10:24
4

Therefore, we regarded the results as likely noise and following the methodology described in Supplementary material S3.3 of XXXXX et. al. (2012), we proceeded to reanalyze the data.

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.