Timeline for Is it acceptable to use the citation references like [1] or [Joh] as nouns in mathematical writing?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 6, 2020 at 23:14 | history | edited | Pietro Paparella | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body; edited tags
|
| May 25, 2017 at 16:38 | history | edited | Drew | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Sep 12, 2016 at 20:28 | vote | accept | Drew | ||
| Aug 18, 2016 at 19:03 | comment | added | Suvrit | This is the classical "\citet" versus "\citep" question (lookup natbib). In particular, it's ok to use "The proof is in [3]" but it is not ok to say: "It was shown by [3]" --- in the latter case, we'd say: "It was shown by Siegel [3]" or similar. If you use natbib, the latter is where you'd use \citet, and the former ("in [3]") is where you'd use \citep.... Whether it is [n], or [Sie27], or something else is more up to the journal's style requirements. | |
| Aug 18, 2016 at 16:50 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Aug 18, 2016 at 15:16 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | Discussed on Academia.SE. As of this writing, there's a +18 answer saying "No", a +22 answer saying "Yes", and a +28 answer saying "Ok if you use a citation style that includes names". | |
| Aug 18, 2016 at 14:01 | answer | added | Nawaf Bou-Rabee | timeline score: 0 | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 22:29 | comment | added | zibadawa timmy | Some journals have specific requirements. Algebra and Number theory requires the citations to use author names over just numbers; they usually don't even abbreviate the names. So "In [S] it was shown..." would not be acceptable, but "Siegel showed [Siegel, 1993]..." would be okay. However, they are willing to alter the citation styles and grammar as appropriate for you, and just have you review the changes for correctness. Personally, I find the [ABH] style better than [3], and in fact this style seems to be how people I know actually converse about the paper. "Didn't ABH show..." | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 21:58 | comment | added | paul garrett | Tangential to the question, I do greatly prefer descriptive, explanatory references of the form [author~year], which seem to me completely fine as nouns, to the opaque [numeral] style which necessitates flipping back and forth... | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 21:47 | answer | added | Friedrich Knop | timeline score: 23 | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 21:45 | comment | added | user78249 | My advisor, who taught me about writing mathematics, said to use it sparingly, but said it's alright. He said it was acceptable if used properly. Sort of like the nomer "we;" don't use it too much but it's alright if dotted occasionally throughout. Although some people are incredibly strict about the use of "we" or "I" in academia... | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 20:51 | history | asked | Drew | CC BY-SA 3.0 |