Difference between revisions of "Remeis English Checklist"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "====== The Remeis English Checklist ====== (by J. Wilms and K. Pottschmidt) //First of all and most importantly:// * did you read the instructions to authors of the journ...") |
|||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
(by J. Wilms and K. Pottschmidt) | (by J. Wilms and K. Pottschmidt) | ||
− | + | ''First of all and most importantly:'' | |
− | + | * did you read the instructions to authors of the journal? If you are working on a thesis, did you read those of [[http://www.aanda.org/doc_journal/instructions/aadoc.pdf|Astronomy and Astrophysics]]? | |
− | + | * did you read appendix A of the [[https://journals.aps.org/files/rmpguide.pdf|instructions to authors]] of Rev Mod Phys? | |
==== Punctuation ==== | ==== Punctuation ==== | ||
− | + | * did you remove all commas before "that"? | |
− | + | * did you end your footnotes and captions with a full stop (".")? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that your use of "data" is correct and uses plural verbs? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that you do not have a ":" anywhere before an equation, but that your equations are seen as part of your sentences? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that you have commas surrounding "i.e." and "e.g."? | |
==== Spelling and Word usage ==== | ==== Spelling and Word usage ==== | ||
− | + | * do you consistently use either British or American spelling? | |
− | + | * did you run a spell checker over your manuscript? For TeX, use "ispell" or the built in spell checker in emacs. | |
− | + | * did you make sure not to use country prefixes in addresses in the author list? | |
− | + | * did you avoid passive voice as much as possible? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that you are //not// using "The found results are..." and similar German constructs in your text? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that everything in your text that is not your original result is accompanied by proper citations? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that you distinguish between "estimate" and "estimation" by replacing all "estimation" with "estimate"? | |
− | + | * did you replace all uses of "exemplary" by "example"? | |
− | + | * did you replace all uses of "the actual value" by "the real value"? (if you are German, "actual" does not mean "aktuell"!) | |
− | + | * did you remove all uses of "hence" and "thereby"? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that you use "however" as sparingly as possible? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that you did not use "the equation reads..", but rather used "the equation is..." or "the equation is given by..."? | |
− | + | * did you avoid split infinitives? ("to boldly go..." is wrong; yes, in many cases split infinitives are ok in current English, but they tend to be so often used wrongly by non-native speakers that it is best to avoid them) | |
− | + | * did you make sure that you distinguish properly between "this" and "these"? | |
− | + | * did you make use of the "Oxford comma", i.e., do you have a comma before "and" in lists? | |
− | + | * did you use "i.e." and "e.g." correctly, i.e., using "i.e." for a specific clarification or definition and "e.g." where you would otherwise use "for example"? | |
− | + | * did you use the IAU recommended year - month - day sequences (2016 March 15)? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that you did not use contractions such as "didn't" or "you're"? | |
− | + | * did you replace "cf." with "see" everywhere since you know that "cf." means "compare"? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that the reader will understand what thing you refer to when using "it" rather than naming it? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that all uses of "this" are followed by the object you are referring to? | |
− | + | * did you use "led" rather than "lead" when using the past tense of the verb "to lead"? | |
− | + | * did you reread the manuscript for internal consistency after you added comments from your coauthors? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that your sentences are short (rule of thumb: if a sentence goes over more than three lines it is probably too long)? | |
− | + | * did you check that you did not combine two sentences that could be separate sentences with "and"? | |
− | + | * did you avoid abbreviations as much as possible and only used them when they are really, really common (HST, AGN, XMM,...)? | |
− | + | * did you check that you defined all abbreviations that you used at their first usage? ("...Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN)..." //not// "...AGN (Active Galactic Nucleus)..." ) | |
==== Citations ==== | ==== Citations ==== | ||
− | + | * did you add the journal to all publications where you list the arXiv-reference and not just blindly copy the erroneous ADS bibtex entry? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that you distinguished between arXiv references where a paper is submitted and references where a paper is already accepted by checking the paper author's comment on the arXiv-page for that article? | |
− | + | * did you remove the page number for all ATEL-references downloaded from ADS and changed the journal name to "Astron. Tel." or "ATEL"? (and similar for IAU telegrams) | |
− | + | * did you add editors and the title of the conference publication to all conference publications? | |
− | + | * did you add the publisher and place information (city only) to all books, conference publications, and other book-like publications that you are citing? | |
− | + | * did you check that your references are correct in that you are using ''\citet{biblabel}'' for references in the text and ''\citep{biblabel}'' for references in parentheses? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that none of your ''\citet{..}'' commands refer to more than one biblabel? | |
==== Typesetting (mainly in TeX) ==== | ==== Typesetting (mainly in TeX) ==== | ||
− | + | * did you check for missing spaces between values and units? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that all scientific units are typeset in ''\mathrm''? | |
− | + | * did you make sure not to use constructs such as ''$\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}$'' by using ''$\mathrm{m}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$'' instead? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that almost all of your error bars are rounded up to only one significant digit rather than following the DIN-norm (which is not applied in astronomical journals)? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that you are not using any positioning commands for the table or figure environment such as ''\begin{table}[htpb]''? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that your tables have captions above the table, and figures have captions below the figure or next to it (where allowed by the style)? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that you use empty lines to denote the start of a new paragraph rather than the ''\\''-command? (use ''\parindent{0pt}'' if you do not want to indent paragraphs) | |
− | + | * did you make sure that there are no paragraph endings above or below ''\begin{equation}...\end{equation}'' by ensuring that there is no empty line above or below the ''equation''-environment? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that you are not using ''$\frac{a}{b}$'' in normal text, but use ''$a/b$'' instead? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that you are not using the ''displaymath''-environment and that all equations are numbered? | |
− | + | * did you make sure that all of your sections, subsections, paragraphs and so on are numbered? | |
− | + | * did you avoid any and all uses of ''\bf'', ''\it'', ''\sl'', or ''\em'' and use the proper commands ''\textbf'', ''\textit'', ''\textsl'', and ''\emph'' instead? | |
− | + | * did you use the en-dash of TeX for ranges, even if they occur in math, by using ''%%--%%'' in text mode rather than a minus sign? (that is, did you typeset a range in an equation as ''%%$3x$--$5x$%%'' or ''%%$3x\mbox{--}5x$%%'' rather than, erroneously, ''$3x-5x$''? | |
[[Category:Current Members]] | [[Category:Current Members]] |
Revision as of 17:26, 11 April 2018
The Remeis English Checklist
(by J. Wilms and K. Pottschmidt)
First of all and most importantly:
- did you read the instructions to authors of the journal? If you are working on a thesis, did you read those of [and Astrophysics]?
- did you read appendix A of the [to authors] of Rev Mod Phys?
Punctuation
- did you remove all commas before "that"?
- did you end your footnotes and captions with a full stop (".")?
- did you make sure that your use of "data" is correct and uses plural verbs?
- did you make sure that you do not have a ":" anywhere before an equation, but that your equations are seen as part of your sentences?
- did you make sure that you have commas surrounding "i.e." and "e.g."?
Spelling and Word usage
- do you consistently use either British or American spelling?
- did you run a spell checker over your manuscript? For TeX, use "ispell" or the built in spell checker in emacs.
- did you make sure not to use country prefixes in addresses in the author list?
- did you avoid passive voice as much as possible?
- did you make sure that you are //not// using "The found results are..." and similar German constructs in your text?
- did you make sure that everything in your text that is not your original result is accompanied by proper citations?
- did you make sure that you distinguish between "estimate" and "estimation" by replacing all "estimation" with "estimate"?
- did you replace all uses of "exemplary" by "example"?
- did you replace all uses of "the actual value" by "the real value"? (if you are German, "actual" does not mean "aktuell"!)
- did you remove all uses of "hence" and "thereby"?
- did you make sure that you use "however" as sparingly as possible?
- did you make sure that you did not use "the equation reads..", but rather used "the equation is..." or "the equation is given by..."?
- did you avoid split infinitives? ("to boldly go..." is wrong; yes, in many cases split infinitives are ok in current English, but they tend to be so often used wrongly by non-native speakers that it is best to avoid them)
- did you make sure that you distinguish properly between "this" and "these"?
- did you make use of the "Oxford comma", i.e., do you have a comma before "and" in lists?
- did you use "i.e." and "e.g." correctly, i.e., using "i.e." for a specific clarification or definition and "e.g." where you would otherwise use "for example"?
- did you use the IAU recommended year - month - day sequences (2016 March 15)?
- did you make sure that you did not use contractions such as "didn't" or "you're"?
- did you replace "cf." with "see" everywhere since you know that "cf." means "compare"?
- did you make sure that the reader will understand what thing you refer to when using "it" rather than naming it?
- did you make sure that all uses of "this" are followed by the object you are referring to?
- did you use "led" rather than "lead" when using the past tense of the verb "to lead"?
- did you reread the manuscript for internal consistency after you added comments from your coauthors?
- did you make sure that your sentences are short (rule of thumb: if a sentence goes over more than three lines it is probably too long)?
- did you check that you did not combine two sentences that could be separate sentences with "and"?
- did you avoid abbreviations as much as possible and only used them when they are really, really common (HST, AGN, XMM,...)?
- did you check that you defined all abbreviations that you used at their first usage? ("...Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN)..." //not// "...AGN (Active Galactic Nucleus)..." )
Citations
- did you add the journal to all publications where you list the arXiv-reference and not just blindly copy the erroneous ADS bibtex entry?
- did you make sure that you distinguished between arXiv references where a paper is submitted and references where a paper is already accepted by checking the paper author's comment on the arXiv-page for that article?
- did you remove the page number for all ATEL-references downloaded from ADS and changed the journal name to "Astron. Tel." or "ATEL"? (and similar for IAU telegrams)
- did you add editors and the title of the conference publication to all conference publications?
- did you add the publisher and place information (city only) to all books, conference publications, and other book-like publications that you are citing?
- did you check that your references are correct in that you are using \citet{biblabel} for references in the text and \citep{biblabel} for references in parentheses?
- did you make sure that none of your \citet{..} commands refer to more than one biblabel?
Typesetting (mainly in TeX)
- did you check for missing spaces between values and units?
- did you make sure that all scientific units are typeset in \mathrm?
- did you make sure not to use constructs such as $\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}$ by using $\mathrm{m}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ instead?
- did you make sure that almost all of your error bars are rounded up to only one significant digit rather than following the DIN-norm (which is not applied in astronomical journals)?
- did you make sure that you are not using any positioning commands for the table or figure environment such as \begin{table}[htpb]?
- did you make sure that your tables have captions above the table, and figures have captions below the figure or next to it (where allowed by the style)?
- did you make sure that you use empty lines to denote the start of a new paragraph rather than the \\-command? (use \parindent{0pt} if you do not want to indent paragraphs)
- did you make sure that there are no paragraph endings above or below \begin{equation}...\end{equation} by ensuring that there is no empty line above or below the equation-environment?
- did you make sure that you are not using $\frac{a}{b}$ in normal text, but use $a/b$ instead?
- did you make sure that you are not using the displaymath-environment and that all equations are numbered?
- did you make sure that all of your sections, subsections, paragraphs and so on are numbered?
- did you avoid any and all uses of \bf, \it, \sl, or \em and use the proper commands \textbf, \textit, \textsl, and \emph instead?
- did you use the en-dash of TeX for ranges, even if they occur in math, by using %%--%% in text mode rather than a minus sign? (that is, did you typeset a range in an equation as %%$3x$--$5x$%% or %%$3x\mbox{--}5x$%% rather than, erroneously, $3x-5x$?