While writing papers (computer science, on the border with digital humanities), I find it quite natural to write

In the following section we will present some examples of such and such.

or

To illustrate these point we will use a few examples of increasing complexity.

Many style guides forbid the use of the future tense and suggest the following formulations, that I personally find too stiff.

The following section presents some examples of such and such

and

Examples of increasing complexity illustrate these points.

(The last sentence is plain ugly.)

I do understand the will to use a language that keeps papers as much factual as possible, but should this dry style be used also for the more narrative parts of a paper?

This question already has an answer here:

I want to mention the name of an specific function (or method) that I used in a experiment in a normal paragraph in my dissertation. What is the best way to do it? Considering that the official dissertation format that my teachers gave me doesn’t mention how to do it.

For example:

“… with the Java programming language we can use System.nanoTime …”

I am finishing my MA thesis and in the process of polishing it.

I adhere to MLA style and I cannot find anything online concerning:

I am translating a few terms. How do you write a term when in isolation? Imagine I am translating the word monere from Latin, which I write in italics. How to I write its translation? Between quotes or not?

I am finishing my MA thesis and in the process of polishing it.

I adhere to MLA style and I cannot find anything online concerning:

I am translating a few terms. How do you write a term when in isolation? Imagine I am translating the word monere from Latin, which I write in italics. How to I write its translation? Between quotes or not?

Book titles within titles of chapters: are they going to be in italics too?

Thank you for your help!!

I have written:

In an oil-water system, if the particle contact angle is larger than 90°, showing greater affinity for the oil phase, then the system is likely to be a W/O emulsion and vice versa.

Does this convey “if the particle contact angle is lower than 90°, that the system is more likely to be O/W emulsion“, in a more professional way, or does it seem lazy?

I hate writing repeating sentences, with a few different words.

This question already has an answer here:

Generally it is considered to be “good practice” to write reports in the third person passive voice for a wide array of academic writing. It is even a requirement of publication in several journals.

However, I have been unable to find any sort of information for “why” this is the way it is. I can’t find any studies on the effect of reports written in the passive vs active tenses nor the effect of 3rd vs 1st person.

Could anyone shed any light on why this is the way it is?

I’m currently polishing an undergraduate lab project report (in the style of a scientific paper) and am struggling to come up with a title I’m happy with.

We investigated whether CRISPR/Cas9 would edit a particular gene of barley, however, we found no signs of somatic or germinal mutations. The system just didn’t work for this particular target.

Titles should summarise your main finding in one sentence and was wondering how I should go about presenting this?

Difficulty found editing the ??? gene of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.).

Putative barrier to editing the ??? gene of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.).

Are two potentials titles I have come up with

Any advice on this would be incredibly appreciated.

I’m writing a master’s thesis in theoretical and mathematical physics, specifically in general relativity.
To better organize the thesis, I’m using the well-known division in works in mathematics to organize important results in lemmas, propositions, theorems and corollaries.
Outside those blocks there are also equations relating to the overall discussion connecting the results.

I’m quite unsure about the equation numbering. I see several options:

  • I number all equations.
  • I number only the important ones which I’ll need later.
  • I number just the equations on the discussions and not those inside the proofs of the lemmas, propositions, theorems, corollaries, etc.

What are the pros and cons of these approaches?

I am presenting a table in my paper which summarizes and compares data from other papers. I’d like the data to be presented uniformly, with the same number of significant figures for all data. However, some of the cited papers have more significant figures in their data than others.

Here’s an example: instead of presenting the table below:

    | Smith, J.    | Doe, J.    | Anon, Y.       | My data    |
|---|--------------|------------|----------------|------------|
| X | 1.42+- 0.31  | 1.3 +- 0.1 | 1.314 +- 0.287 | 1.4 +- 0.2 |
| Y | 1.43 +- 0.10 | 1.4 +- 0.2 | 1.421 +- 0.234 | 1.5 +- 0.3 |

I’d like to normalize the number of significant figures to make it easier to compare them:

    | Smith, J.  | Doe, J.    | Anon, Y.   | My data    |
|---|------------|------------|------------|------------|
| X | 1.4 +- 0.3 | 1.3 +- 0.1 | 1.3 +- 0.3 | 1.4 +- 0.2 |
| Y | 1.4 +- 0.1 | 1.4 +- 0.2 | 1.4 +- 0.2 | 1.5 +- 0.3 |

Can I (or should I) remove significant figures from their data, for consistency purposes? If so, can I still use the expression reproduced from Smith, J., or should I use something as adapted from Smith, J.?

Let’s assume you are writing a cover letter for a tenure-track position in the US in computer science. In the cover letter, you would like to express your affinity to potential research areas and your openedness to collaboration with the corresponding researchers. You do not wish to promise collaboration, since it always involves the other side. How to formulate it properly and concisely?

Here is a sample I found somewhere online (don’t ask me where):

At the School of GreatDiscipline at the ImportantCity College I would:

  • 〈irony〉 grab away your students for my useless projects 〈/irony〉

  • 〈irony〉 spend lots of your money without return 〈/irony〉

  • 〈irony〉 finally reduce the percentage of women down to zero 〈/irony〉

  • welcome collaboration with the researchers from the areas X, Y, and Z,

(Of course, replace the ironical parts by proper formulations.)
Here are some choices I considered:

[

  • be open to …
  • envisage …
  • favor …
  • promote …
  • facilitate …
  • offer …
  • welcome …

collaboration with …].

All of them seem not ideal to me; I’m stuck. Some of them might be even a poor choice. Any suggestion for an appropriate phrase?