Post History
I peer review many papers; half a dozen this year. If it is defined before the first use (e.g. "For brevity we use 'randvar' to specify random variables, 'logvar' to specify logical variables.") t...
Answer
#5: Post edited
by
Amadeus
·
2020-01-22T14:12:37Z (almost 5 years ago)
I peer review many papers; half a dozen this year.If it is defined before the first use (e.g. "For brevity we use 'randvar' to specify random variables, 'logvar' to specify logical variables.") then I wouldn't complain.Authors are entitled to invent terminology for a paper, as long as it doesn't conflict with other standard usage. For example, if 'logvar' were widely understood as 'logarithmic variation' or something, you can't use 'logvar' in your paper to mean 'logical variable' even if you tell us that up-front. There is a risk of confusion by readers accustomed to the standard.But if there is no risk of confusion, let them do it. Space is important, and forcing them to delete a few lines of the paper to accommodate the spelled-out forms is a loss of detail or information that is worse than remembering what 'randvar' stands for.
- I peer review many papers; half a dozen this year.
- If it is defined before the first use (e.g. "For brevity we use 'randvar' to specify random variables, 'logvar' to specify logical variables.") then I wouldn't complain.
- Authors are entitled to invent terminology for a paper, as long as it doesn't conflict with other standard usage. For example, if 'logvar' were widely understood as 'logarithmic variation' or something, you can't use 'logvar' in your paper to mean 'logical variable' even if you tell us that up-front. There is a risk of confusion by readers accustomed to the standard.
- But if there is no risk of confusion, let them do it. Space is important, and forcing them to delete a few lines of the paper to accommodate the spelled-out forms is a loss of detail or information that is worse than remembering what 'randvar' stands for.
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2019-12-19T22:13:55Z (about 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/48353 License name: CC BY-SA 4.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T13:05:45Z (about 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/48353 License name: CC BY-SA 4.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
#2: Initial revision
I peer review many papers; half a dozen this year. If it is defined before the first use (e.g. "For brevity we use 'randvar' to specify random variables, 'logvar' to specify logical variables.") then I wouldn't complain. Authors are entitled to invent terminology for a paper, as long as it doesn't conflict with other standard usage. For example, if 'logvar' were widely understood as 'logarithmic variation' or something, you can't use 'logvar' in your paper to mean 'logical variable' even if you tell us that up-front. There is a risk of confusion by readers accustomed to the standard. But if there is no risk of confusion, let them do it. Space is important, and forcing them to delete a few lines of the paper to accommodate the spelled-out forms is a loss of detail or information that is worse than remembering what 'randvar' stands for.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2019-10-03T16:52:10Z (about 5 years ago)
Original score: 5