0

Sorry, I am a German engineer, so my English language skills are quite poor :D. I am writing a scientific paper and I have several sentences as the following example

  • In [1] the definition proposed in [2] has been expanded by ...

The numbers [1] and [2] appear exactly like that in the final manuscript and are literature references, e.g.,

[1] Last name, First name (2016): Very interesting new paper, Journal 1.

[2] Last name, First name (2000): Very interesting old paper, Journal 2.

My problem is that I don't know if I have to put a comma after the literature reference [1] in the sentence above, i.e.,

  • In [1], the definition proposed in [2] has been expanded by ...

My "feelings" tell me that [1] is crucial information which can not be taken out of the sentence, since then

  • The definition proposed in [2] has been expanded by ...

gives information which can not be found. For this reason I would NOT put a comma after [1] but that's only a "feeling" of a German engineer, so not very reliable :D. What is correct in this case?

  • There is no strict correct or incorrect in this case. I personally would go with "In [1], ..." or even in "The definition of refrobulation offered by Kandisky and Miller [1] has been expanded by Oomërt and Jones [2] to include cross-tabulation..." – Dan Bron Jan 28 '16 at 14:37
  • Oh sorry, did not see that one. This is not a complain but a question: punctuation questions like this one do NOT correspond to the scope of this site. I took a look at http://english.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic and "spelling and punctuation" seemed to be one. – Mauricio Fernández Jan 28 '16 at 16:05
  • @MauricioLobos Punctuation questions are specifically on topic here. You can ask about them all you want. Good idea to check if someone's already asked the same question, though. You do not need a comma after " In [1]" here. You might find this Q interesting: deadrat's answer. I'm not sure if a comma's even an option in your case though. – Araucaria - Him Jan 28 '16 at 16:41

0 Answers0