This question already has an answer here:

What is the British English way of referring to a source in-text.

Is it plural because there are two authors, like this:

X and Y (2011) describe …

Or is it singular because you are referring to a singular source, like this:

X and Y (2011) describes…

So what I am asking is whether you refer to the source or to the authors?

Now, say authors A and B are writing their second paper. Which is more appropriate, or which sounds better. Referring to their previous work as “we researched/we surveyed” or “the authors researched/surveyed”. This warrants a question because, in the first case, it may sound like they are “broadcasting” their presence, while in the second case, it seems like they are “hiding” their identity.

Although, the following questions 1 (which applies for a single author case) and 2 (which refers to when there may be many authors but some of them may not share co-authorship in a new publication) are similar, they are quite different from what is intended here. Also question 3 is quite close, but I guess the question applies for use in a thesis.

I’m currently looking for some advise concerning the correct way of mentioning people (i.e. inventors or scientists) in a (PhD) thesis. To clarify, I’m looking for a good way of phrasing “Method X was invented by Y”. Which of the following sentences – if any – would be the best way?

  • Method X was invented by Doe
  • Method X was invented by John Doe
  • Method X was invented by John Doe (12 March 1899 – 22 April 1956)
  • Method X was invented by the Russian mathmatician and writer John Doe (12 March 1899 – 22 April 1956)

Personally, I think that it’s appropriate to give some background (i.e. birth and death dates) for each newly introduced person. However, this might maybe be considered a bit too elaborated for a technical thesis.

Following suggestions for my post here “Should results of a journal paper always be reproducible?“, I have done the simulation using a particular seed in the first part of my result section. Now the issues are, how to mention that particular seed in the paper. I have not come across any particular paper doing so. For this reason, I am uncertain about mentioning it.

Any reference of how people do this would be highly appreciable.

Meanwhile, following is what I am writing

In practice, nodes can be distributed in a large number of topologies.
However, the results in Fig. 2,3, and
4 follow a fixed topology generated by pseudo-random
seed (1010) to validate the scheme. Later, a more comprehensive
analysis is shown in Fig. 5 and Table
I.

APA says that “U.S.” should be typed out with periods if the abbreviation is being used as an adjective. If you are using this “common” abbreviation, do you need an earlier parenthetical explanation of the abbreviation?

In other words, if the progression of the text is:

“He lives in the United States … He is a member of the U.S. Navy.”

should it be:
“He lives in the United States (U.S.) … He is a member of the U.S. Navy.”

?

People often use a different symbol to denote the same meaning.

For example, an author used symbol a for a data sequence. However, the same author, in another article, uses the symbol x to denote the same data sequence in the same context.

Why doesn’t he use symbol a for the data sequence in the second article? Is it just to make the manuscript look different compared to their previous one? Note that there is enough degree-of-freedom to use the same set (or sub-set) of previous symbols in next manuscript.

Nevertheless, it becomes more complicated for the readers when they use Greek symbols together with superscript and subscript. I agree that people have their own choice to use the symbols in their manuscript, however, why would the same group of authors use a different symbol for the same meaning in another manuscript?

I’m currently writing a paper and in the introduction I have something in this vein :

[…] Algorithms of this type have the following characteristics (we
discuss this in Section 6)
. […] The paper is structured as follows
[…] In Section 6, we […]

I was wondering, is it okay to put a forward reference like this, even before describing what Section 6 is about in the outline at the end of the introduction (In Section 6, we [...])? Or is it considered bad practice?

People often use different symbol to denote the same description. For example, symbols a, b, d, x, and s are commonly used to denote the data sequence. Nevertheless, it becomes more complicated at first sight when we use Greek symbols together with superscript and subscript. I agree that people have their own choice to use the symbols in their manuscript, however, why same group of authors uses different symbol for the same description used in different manuscript? Is it just to make the manuscript look different compared to their previous one? Note that there is enough degree-of-freedom to use the same set (or sub-set) of previous symbols in next manuscript.

What is the British English way of referring to a source in-text.

Is it plural because there are two authors, like this:

X and Y (2011) describe …

Or is it singular because you are referring to a singular source, like this:

X and Y (2011) describes…

So what I am asking is whether you refer to the source or to the authors?