Hot answers tagged

7

I have worked in similar cross-platform teams. Mine in the past was more Latex on Linux with bibtex versus Microsoft Word on Windows with Zotero. In that case, we were working on multiple papers together, so our policy was that everyone went along with the tool that the first author preferred, so we all got a lot of cross-platform experience. That worked for ...


5

I would (and have) take the answer of Tripartio a step further. Invest all of the actual formal writing of the paper in one or two people who agree to use the same tools whatever they are. Everyone else suggests updates/changes as needed, providing their comments in any suitable format. When changes are distributed to the team members they might also be ...


3

I will first list some alternatives I have encountered. I will leave it up to you whether they are true alternatives or just riffs on IMRaD and whether they are actually formalised structures: Particularly in the life sciences journals request the structure Introduction – Results – Discussion – Methods, where the latter is kind of an appendix. However, this ...


2

I suppose the results of your mathematical derivations matter for your paper's conclusions, not the way you derived them. The results will probably have a natural place where they belong in your paper. If the derivations are short, you can present them there. But if the derivations occupy significant space (and aren't part of your core content), presenting ...


1

In the two examples you give, I don't agree the statements need to be "interpreted informally". Rather I would say that the meaning is clear within the context of the problem. For example, suppose you have a function f(a,b,c,d) or an expectation E_{a~p, b~q}[ f(a, b)]. Often authors will just write f or E[f] respectively. There is no mistake, it's ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible