Skip to main content

New answers tagged

0 votes

Use of "would have + past tense" in a scientific article

I have been stumbling upon this thought here and there. After a couple of thoughts, I decided to use the present tense, because it is shorter in length.
Văn Dũng Lê's user avatar
9 votes

Use of "would have + past tense" in a scientific article

Don’t overthink it. Either is fine and nobody will (would) notice. It is perfectly clear either way.
Buffy's user avatar
  • 371k
1 vote

Why are method sections usually impersonal, when the main text isn’t?

I don't think it has anything to do with who did what and whether the personal involvement matters - it is about the purpose of the sections in a paper. The methods section, historically, is meant to ...
BioBrains's user avatar
  • 4,253
9 votes

Why are method sections usually impersonal, when the main text isn’t?

Ah for the days of longer style guides that actually explained things. If I pull out my American Institute of Physics "AIP Style Manual" (Fourth edition, 1990) one finds: 9. "I," &...
Jon Custer's user avatar
  • 13.4k
3 votes

Why are method sections usually impersonal, when the main text isn’t?

Many take the view that the it makes sense to write the methods in an impersonal style, as it really should aim to be purely objective. The platonic ideal then is that the same methods could be ...
Anyon's user avatar
  • 26.8k
8 votes

Why are method sections usually impersonal, when the main text isn’t?

To answer your main question (and a good one!): These are most commonly written in the impersonal style, although the main papers are exclusively written in active style since decades. Why? I ...
Richard Erickson's user avatar
1 vote

I am citing from a paper which confused the word "affective" and "affectionate", what should I do?

I would use - "affective (sic: affectionate)"
Neithea's user avatar
  • 544

Top 50 recent answers are included