The molecule has bulky substituents in the ortho positions; as a result, the eclipsed rotamer is energetically disfavored.

The fact that eclipsed rotamer is energetically disfavored is a consequence of the steric bulk of the substituents.

The diphenyl phosphine oxide group is electron withdrawing, and as a result, the central carbon of the allene is electron deficient.

The electron deficiency is a consequence of the presence of the electron-withdrawing group.

In the course of my ESL editing, I often encounter what seems to me a nonstandard use of “as a result,” in which the phrase is used prepositionally to connect a sentence or clause describing an experiment and a second sentence or clause describing the outcome of that experiment. The usage seems particularly common  in papers written by authors whose native language is Japanese. Here’s an example:

We investigated the photocatalytic degradation of 17β-estradiol in water and concurrently evaluated the estrogenic activity of the treated water. As a result, 17β-estradiol was totally mineralized to CO₂ in a TiO₂ suspension under UV irradiation for 3 h.

Some readers will momentarily misinterpret “as a result” as implying that the mineralization was a consequence of, was caused by, the investigation and evaluation. However, the author is actually using “as a result” simply to indicate that the subsequent text describes a result (a finding) of the experiment. That is, “17β-estradiol was totally mineralized to CO₂…” constitutes a result of the experiment. The sentence opening could be thought of as an elided form of “As a result of this experiment, we found that…”

Here’s another example:

Serial dilution tests of the JCAbl antibody were performed on the three tissues. As a result, JCAbl reacted with JCV-IMR32 cells and PML tissues at all the dilutions.

Here, again, the authors do not mean that the reaction of the antibody with the tissues was caused by, was a consequence of, the serial dilutions tests. Rather, they mean that the observed result of the experiments was that the antibody reacted with the specified tissues at all dilutions.

I wouldn’t call this use of “as well as” a serious error, but as I pointed out, some readers will find it momentarily distracting. In my opinion, the best revision is simply to replace “as a result” with “we found that”:

We investigated the photocatalytic degradation of 17β-estradiol in water and concurrently evaluated the estrogenic activity of the treated water. We found that 17β-estradiol was totally mineralized to CO₂ in a TiO₂ suspension under UV irradiation for 3 h.

But you could also revise to any of the following:

We investigated the photocatalytic degradation of 17β-estradiol in water….The results of these experiments indicated that 17β-estradiol was totally mineralized to CO₂ in a TiO₂ suspension under UV irradiation for 3 h.

When we investigated the photocatalytic degradation of 17β-estradiol in water…, we found that that 17β-estradiol was totally mineralized to CO₂ in a TiO₂ suspension under UV irradiation for 3 h.

Investigation of the photocatalytic degradation of 17β-estradiol in water and concurrent evaluation of the estrogenic activity of the treated water indicated that 17β-estradiol was totally mineralized to CO₂ in a TiO₂ suspension under UV irradiation for 3 h.

If anyone can verify that this is an artifact of the Japanese language, I’d be interested to hear about it.

]]> http://www.shearsoneditorial.com/2013/04/as-a-result-as-a-conjunctive-adverbial-phrase/feed/ 1 http://www.shearsoneditorial.com/2013/02/whats-the-difference-between-extensively-and-intensively/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=whats-the-difference-between-extensively-and-intensively http://www.shearsoneditorial.com/2013/02/whats-the-difference-between-extensively-and-intensively/#comments Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:32:06 +0000 admin http://www.shearsoneditorial.com/?p=1430 What’s the difference between studying a subject extensively and studying it intensively, between doing extensive research and intensive research? It seems like a simple enough question, one that could easily be answered by consulting a dictionary. I consulted four: Merriam-Webster Unabridged (3rd ed), The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4th ed), and The American Heritage Dictionary (5th ed) .* Here’s what I found:

Intensive = intense; highly concentrated; thorough; exhaustive

Extensive = large in extent, range, or amount; far-reaching; comprehensive; wide

You can see that in some senses, the two words seem like antonyms (compare “highly concentrated” and “wide”), whereas in other senses, they are nearly  synonymous (compare “exhaustive” and “comprehensive”). Perhaps not surprisingly  then, I find that scientists who are not native English speakers sometimes have trouble with these two words: specifically, they use “intensively” where I would expect “extensively.” (I can’t say that I’ve ever seen the opposite, and it’s worth noting that a search of Google Scholar reveals that “extensively” is used more than three times as often as “intensively.”)  I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this constitutes an error, but why not preserve a useful distinction between the two words?

I suggest using “intensively” when referring to in-depth research involving intense effort narrowly focused on a specific issue and perhaps conducted by a small group of researchers. In contrast, use “extensively” when describing comprehensive research covering many aspects of an issue and perhaps conducted over a relatively long period of time by numerous research groups.

Here are some examples of what I consider to be idiomatic uses of these two adverbs:

At an intensively studied site within the region, >90% of the dominant overstory tree species died after 15 months of depleted soil water content.

The figure illustrates a typical spine synapse that makes intimate contact with an apical dendrite of a pyramidal cell. The ultrastructure of such synapses has been intensively studied in our laboratory.

Plasma membrane transporters have been intensively studied at the mechanistic, biochemical, and molecular levels.

The asymmetric aldol condensation has been the subject of intensive study in our laboratory. 

The asymmetric aldol condensation is among the most powerful reactions in synthetic organic chemistry and has been extensively studied over the past 15 years.

As surrogates for the central nervous system, peripheral samples such as blood, saliva, and skin have been extensively used in psychiatric research for decades.

Because of its importance in cholesterol biosynthesis, HMG-CoA reductase has been extensively studied.

Undoubtedly, some subjects have been studied both intensively and extensively. Can both words be used in the same sentence? I found very few examples on Google Scholar. Here’s one:

One-dimensional ZnO nanostructures have been studied intensively and extensively over the last decade not only for their remarkable chemical and physical properties, but also for their current and future diverse technological applications.

I’m not sure how I feel about that sentence. What do you think about it?

*Note that the first three dictionaries are considered to be descriptive—that is, they describe the language as it is actually used by native speakers; whereas the last is a prescriptive dictionary in that it provides some guidance as to how various usage “experts” feel that the language should be used. Unfortunately, it doesn’t provide any guidance about the difference between “extensively” and “intensively.”

1. Adverb placement 

2. Dangling infinitives

3. Shortening your paper or abstract

4. Illogical comparisons

5. Implied antecedents for “those” and that” 

I look forward to providing more tips in 2013. In the meantime, I’d like to direct you to a wonderful series of articles on scientific writing, published in 2010 in the journal Clinical Chemistry: “The Clinical Chemistry Guide to Scientific Writing.” The great thing for ESL authors is that these articles—which cover all the components of a typical scientific paper, including figures and tables—have been translated into Chinese, Spanish, and Portuguese. For additional online information about scientific writing, visit the links in the sidebar on the right, under “Scientific Writing Advice.”

Metallic nickel served as a catalyst for the growth of carbon nanotubes.

In Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers, Mimi Zeiger advises that you put the key action of a sentence in the verb, but here the action is buried in the prepositional phrase “as a catalyst.” By eliminating “served as” and moving the action to the verb, we get a more direct, more concise sentence:

Metallic nickel catalyzed the growth of  carbon nanotubes.

Here are some additional examples, along with suggested revisions in italics:

An alkyne group served as an anchor for the fluorophore.

An alkyne group anchored the fluorophore.

Interspecific hybridization served as a stimulus for the evolution of new species.

Interspecific hybridization stimulated the evolution of new species.

Dr. Chandler served as the coordinator for the conference.

Dr. Chandler coordinated the conference.

The whole gastrocnemius served as the sample for analysis.

The whole gastrocnemius was analyzed.

Note, however, that it’s not always necessary, or even possible, to eliminate “served as”:

The serum cholesterol level served as a biomarker for the activity of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors.

Here, because the verb “to biomark” doesn’t exist in English (at least not yet), we can’t change this to

The serum cholesterol level biomarked the activity of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors.

For more on verbs in scientific writing, see the following sources: Robert A. Day, Scientific English: A Guide for Scientists and Other Professionals, 2nd ed. (Westport, CT: Oryx Press, 1995), pp. 35–36; David Lindsay, A Guide to Scientific Writing, 2nd ed. (Sydney: Longman, 1995), pp. 48–50; Maeve O’Connor, Writing Successfully in Science (London: E and FN Spon, 1999), pp. 102–103; Mimi Zeiger, Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000), pp. 23–26.

Infrared spectroscopy or electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy can be used to follow the kinetics of radical decay.

Here “or” is used to indicate two alternative techniques—infrared spectroscopy and electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy—either of which can be used to follow the decay kinetics.  In this type of sentence, “or” separates the two parts of a compound subject, and no additional punctuation is required. What about the following, apparently similar sentence?

Reflectance difference spectroscopy or reflectance anisotropy spectroscopy is a powerful tool for characterizing the surfaces of crystalline materials.

If “reflectance difference spectroscopy” and “reflectance anisotropy spectroscopy” were two different techniques, the sentence would be syntactically  analogous to the previous one. However, “reflectance difference spectroscopy” and “reflectance anisotropy spectroscopy” are in fact two different names for one technique, so here “or” is being used in the sense of “also referred to as.” When “or” is used in this way, the phrase it introduces is customarily enclosed in commas:

Reflectance difference spectroscopy, or reflectance anisotropy spectroscopy, is a powerful tool for characterizing the surfaces of crystalline materials.

You might argue that the commas are unnecessary because the specialized reader will know that these two terms are synonymous. However, using the customary commas will be helpful to nonspecialized readers, providing, of course, that they’re familiar with this punctuation convention. If you want your meaning to be absolutely clear, you might want to revise to

Reflectance difference spectroscopy, also referred to as reflectance anisotropy spectroscopy, is a powerful tool for characterizing the surfaces of crystalline materials.

Here are some additional examples of correctly punctuated sentences containing an appositional “or”:

• We used quasielastic, or dynamic, light-scattering spectroscopy to assess the sizes and polydispersities of the particles.
• The dihydropteroate synthase gene is part of the folic acid synthesis gene, or fas gene, and encodes a trifunctional protein.
• Binding immunoglobulin protein (BiP), or 78-kDa glucose-regulated protein (GRP-78), is highly induced in hypoxic tumors.
• We studied the mutarotation, or change in optical rotation accompanying epimerization, of 8-ᴅ-galactopyranose in dilute aqueous buffer (pH 4.3)  at 15°C.

• Single-letter symbols for variables, physical quantities, and physical constants are set in italic type: for example, V for volume and h for Planck’s constant.
• Multiletter variable symbols, mathematical constants, trigonometric functions, mathematical operators, numerals, punctuation, and fences are set in roman type: for example, cmc for critical micelle concentration, π, sin, and Δ (difference), δ (small difference), and d (infinitesimal difference).
• Superscripts and subscripts that are themselves symbols for variables or physical quantities are set in italic type, whereas superscripts and subscripts that are abbreviations are set in roman type: compare, for example, Cp for heat capacity at constant pressure and Ki for inhibition constant.
• Mathematical operators functioning as verbs or conjunctions are set with a space on each side (e.g., n = 25 and 6.022 × 1023), except when they are used in subscripts or superscripts (e.g., an+1). One exception is the slash (/), which is usually set without spaces: x/(y – z).
• Mathematical symbols used as adjectives are set without a space between the symbol and the number: for example, a pH of <5.
• Functions set in Roman type should be preceded and followed by a space unless the argument is enclosed in fences: compare, for example, sin θ and ln(2x).

Let’s look at some sample equations illustrating the departures from convention that I see most frequently. How many can you find in the following equation?

Ni / N0 = exp (–ΔEvib / kBT)

where Ni is the number of molecules in vibrational state i, N0 is the number of molecules in the lowest vibrational state, ΔEvib is the energy difference between the two vibrational states, kB is the Boltzmann constant, and T is absolute temperature. Here’s my revision:

Ni/N0 = exp(–ΔEvib/kBT)

I deleted the spaces around the slashes and the space after “exp,” and I used roman type for the subscripted numeral “0,” for the subscripted abbreviations “vib” and “B” (for “vibrational” and “Boltzmann,” respectively), and the Δ symbol. Note, however, that I retained the italics for the subscripted “i ” because it’s a variable. Here’s another example. The ozone depletion potential of chemical i, (ODPi) is given by

ODPi = kiτi/krτr

where ki and kr are the rate constants for the reactions of chemical i and a reference chemical with O2, and τi and τr are the atmospheric lifetimes of chemical i and the reference chemical. And the revised version:

ODPi = kiτi/krτr

Multiletter variables such as ODPi should not be italicized; nor should the subscripted “r,” which stands for “reference.” Whether or not you italicize Greek-letter variable symbols such as τ will depend on what style guide you are following. Scientific Style and Format suggests that they should be italicized, as does IUPAC. In contrast, The ACS Style Guide, although it does not provide any explicit guidance, shows Greek-letter variables in roman type.

For more information on typography for mathematical copy, have a look at the following references:

Coghill, Anne M., and Lorrin R. Garson, eds. The ACS Style Guide: Effective Communication of Scientific Information. 3rd ed. Washington DC: American Chemical Society, 2006. pp. 210–223.

Council of Science Editors. Scientific Style and Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. 7th ed. Reston, VA: Council of Science Editors, 2006. pp 158–167.

IUPAC. “On the use of italic and roman fonts for symbols and scientific text.” http://old.iupac.org/standing/idcns/italic-roman_dec99.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2012.

IUPAC. Quantities, Units, and Symbols in Physical Chemistry. Prepared by Ian Mills, Tomislav Cvitaš, Klauss Homann, Nikola Kallay, and Kozo Kuchitsu. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 1993. Available at http://old.iupac.org/publications/books/gbook/green_book_2ed.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2012.

Swanson, Ellen. Mathematics into Type. Updated edition. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1999.

This week’s sentence is…

The sequence can readily be programmed; that is, it is possible to start from a common set of reagents and steer all levels of selectivity by varying only the order of reagents and/or the catalyst used.

Here’s one possible revision:

The sequence can readily be readily programmed; that is, it is possible to one can start from a common set of reagents and steercontrol all levels of selectivity by varying only the catalyst used or the order of in which the reagents and/or the catalyst usedare added, or both.

• The adverb”readily” is now in its  natural location between the auxiliary verb (“can be”) and the main verb (“programmed”). For more on adverb placement, see Garner’s Modern American Usage, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 23-24.
• Changing “it is possible to” to “one can” prevents readers from momentarily misreading the expletive “it” as a pronoun referring back to “the sequence.”
• “Control…selectivity” is more idiomatic than “steer…selectivity.”
• It’s  the addition of the reagents, not the reagents themselves, that has an order. With the extra words required to convey that information precisely, the sentence is easier to read when the  two variations (catalyst and order of reagent addition) are mentioned in the opposite order.
• “And/or” is generally frowned upon as being imprecise. For example, see The ACS Style Guide, 3rd ed. (American Chemical Society, 2006), p. 56.

The skiers raced down the snow-covered slopes.

Here, “snow-covered” is a compound adjective constructed from the noun “snow” and the past participle of the verb “to cover.” The compound describes the slopes; the slopes were covered. Covered with what? Covered with snow.

Here’s another:

The bishop placed the jewel-encrusted crown on the queen’s head.

“Jewel-encrusted” is a compound adjective modifying “crown”; the crown was encrusted with jewels.

Now let’s look a couple of analogous sentence from the scientific literature.

The surface-adsorbed nitrogen was quantified by means of a transient-response experiment.

Here, “surface-adsorbed” is a compound adjective constructed from the noun “surface” and the past participle of the verb “to adsorb.” The compound modifies “nitrogen; the nitrogen was adsorbed. Where was it adsorbed? On the surface.

Seems pretty straightforward, right? Apparently it’s not though, because I frequently encounter sentences like the following:

A typical DSC consists of a dye-adsorbed electrode, a platinum counter electrode, and an electrolyte solution.

This sentence is analogous to all the sentences we’ve looked at so far. “Dye-adsorbed” is a compound adjective modifying “electrode.” The electrode is adsorbed. What is it adsorbed on? The dye. Except, of course, the intended meaning is exactly the opposite: the dye is in fact adsorbed on the electrode.

How should we revise such sentences? In this case, the best option is probably

A typical DSC consists of a dye-sensitized electrode, a platinum counter electrode, and an electrolyte solution.

However, you might also consider dye-stained, dye-doped, dye-bearing, dye-impregnated, dye-modified, dye-covered, or dye-loaded—depending on which modifier best conveys your meaning.

A similar problem arises with compound adjectives involving the past participle “immobilized”:

The carbohydrate-immobilized sensor exhibited a large decrease in frequency.

This sentence implies that the sensor was immobilized on the carbohydrate, when in fact it was the carbohydrate that was immobilized on the sensor. Here are several more sentences with incorrectly constructed compound adjectives, along with suggested revisions in italics:

• FGF2-adsorbed macroporous hydroxyapatite bone granules stimulated in vitro osteoblastic gene expression and differentiation.

FGF2-treated macroporous hydroxyapatite bone granules stimulated in vitro osteoblastic gene expression and differentiation

• The heparin-immobilized nanoparticles exhibited enhanced fluorescence.

The heparin-bearing nanoparticles exhibited enhanced fluorescence.

• We prepared DNA-immobilized nanoparticles.

We prepared nanoparticles bearing immobilized DNA.

We immobilized DNA on nanoparticles.

• We spread a monolayer of Au nanoparticles on a flat pyridine-adsorbed silver electrode.

We spread a monolayer of Au nanoparticles on a flat pyridine-covered silver electrode.

• We determined the peroxide sensitivity of the enzyme-mediator-adsorbed electrode.

We determined the peroxide sensitivity of the electrode bearing the adsorbed enzyme mediator.

• The spore-immobilized beads were cured in FeCl₃ solution for 1 h.

The beads with immobilized spores were cured in FeCl₃ solution for 1 h.

So when you are describing experiments involving immobilized or adsorbed species, take care that you have constructed your compound modifiers correctly.

Metal precursors were introduced into separate polymer blocks, followed by removal of the templates by pyrolysis.

What noun does “followed” modify—that is, what was followed by removal of the templates? Neither the nearest noun, “blocks,” nor the noun at the beginning of the sentence, “precursors,” will work. The author intended “followed” to modify a noun that doesn’t actually appear in the sentence, “introduction”:

Introduction of the metal precursors was followed by removal of the templates by pyrolysis.

Making the intended referrent explicit is one solution. Another is to convert the participial phrase into a clause and indicate the sequence of events by adding “subsequently”:

Metal precursors were introduced into separate polymer blocks, and the templates were subsequently removed by pyrolysis.

Here are some additional example sentences, along with suggested revisions in italics:

• We prepared anhydrous CDCl₃ by drying commercial CDCl₃ over CaSO₄ followed by distillation under nitrogen.

We prepared anhydrous CDCl₃ by drying commercial CDCl₃ over CaSO4 and then distilling it under nitrogen.

• Coated coverslips were prepared by adding polymer solution (20 μL) followed by spin-coating.

Coated coverslips were prepared by the addition of polymer solution (20 μL) and subsequent spin-coating.

• In 1997, continuous monitoring of CO was initiated on the first ship followed by the other two ships in 1998 and 1999, respectively.

In 1997, continuous monitoring of CO was initiated on the first ship, and CO monitoring on the other two ships began in 1998 and 1999, respectively.

• The catalyst and the activated carbon were mixed in an agate mortar, followed by pelletizing and sieving into 0.15–0.25 mm granules.

The catalyst and the activated carbon were mixed in an agate mortar, and the mixture was then pelletized and sieved into 0.15–0.25 mm granules.

• The sample was pretreated in 5% O₂/He at 500°C for 1 h, followed by cooling down to 150°C.

The sample was pretreated in 5% O₂/He at 500°C for 1 h and then cooled to 150°C.

• Cooperative action of the anion and the metal center promoted ring opening to generate an oxyanion, which then attacked CO₂ followed by ring closure to afford the cyclic carbonate.

Cooperative action of the anion and the metal center promoted ring opening to generate an oxyanion, which then attacked CO₂; subsequent ring closure afforded the cyclic carbonate.

Cooperative action of the anion and the metal center promoted ring opening to generate an oxyanion; the oxyanion then attacked CO₂, and subsequent ring closure afforded the cyclic carbonate.

• The focal adhesions at the blunt end of the teardrop were retracted, whereas those at the sharp end were extended, followed by nucleus translocation into the neighboring teardrop.

The focal adhesions at the blunt end of the teardrop were retracted, whereas those at the sharp end were extended; the nucleus was subsequently translocated into the neighboring teardrop.

The focal adhesions at the blunt end of the teardrop were retracted. In contrast, those at the sharp end were extended, and the nucleus was subsequently translocated into the neighboring teardrop.

• The lysates were incubated with MeHg for 30 min at 37°C, followed by reaction with 10 µM BPM for 30 min at 37°C.

The lysates were incubated with MeHg for 30 min at 37°C and then allowed to react with 10 µM BPM for 30 min at 37°C.

Only I drive red cars; no one else drives them.

I only drive red cars; I do not park them.

I drive only red cars; I do not drive green cars.

I drive red-only cars; I do not drive multicolored cars.

I drive red cars only; I do not drive red motorcycles.

Perhaps because “only” is so often used as an example in grammar books, many writers place it correctly. However, in the course of my scientific editing, I routinely encounter other misplaced adverbs;  the usual culprits are “predominantly,” “mainly,” and “mostly.” Let’s look at some examples:

Eukaryote-specific rRNA is predominantly located on the surface of the ribosome.

Here, “predominantly” incorrect modifies the verb “located,” when in fact it should modify the adverbial phrase “on the surface of the ribosome”:

Eukaryote-specific rRNA is located predominantly on the surface of the ribosome.

In my experience, most errors of this type involve incorrect placement of the adverb before the verb instead of after it, as in all the following examples (corrected sentences are italicized):

• Under neutral conditions, the O-acyl isopeptides were predominantly converted to the corresponding monomeric amyloid β peptides.

Under neutral conditions, the O-acyl isopeptides were converted predominantly to the corresponding monomeric amyloid β peptides.

• Cystathionine β-synthase catalyzes the formation of H₂S, which predominantly exists as SH^– at physiological pH.

Cystathionine β-synthase catalyzes the formation of H₂S, which exists predominantly as SH^– at physiological pH.

• Most other anthropogenic emissions, such as emissions related to fossil fuel combustion, mainly occur in urban areas.

Most other anthropogenic emissions, such as emissions related to fossil fuel combustion, occur mainly in urban areas.

• Humans are mainly exposed to PAHs by three routes: digestion, inhalation and dermal contact.

Humans are exposed to PAHs mainly by three routes: digestion, inhalation and dermal contact.

Humans are exposed to PAHs by three main routes: digestion, inhalation and dermal contact.

• The inhibitory activity of the plant extract was mostly due to coumarin.

The inhibitory activity of the plant extract was due mostly to coumarin.

• The evolution of H₂O at 85–100 °C was mostly due to vaporization, whereas H₂O evolution at 300–350 °C was mostly due to intramolecular H₂O elimination.

The evolution of H₂O at 85–100 °C was due mostly to vaporization, whereas H₂O evolution at 300–350 °C was due mostly to intramolecular H₂O elimination.

Admittedly, none of these sentences is likely to be misinterpreted; the alternative meaning implied by the misplaced adverb doesn’t make much sense, at least to a native speaker of English. However, these subtle errors may momentarily confuse non-native speakers—and may distract discerning readers into focusing on the quality of your prose rather than the quality of your research.

So spend a few minutes using your word processor’s search function to confirm that you have correctly placed these three adverbs in your papers.

References

Coghill, Anne M., and Lorrin R. Garson. The ACS Style Guide: Effective Communication of Scientific Information, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, 2006), p. 45.

Cook, Claire Kehrwald, Line by Line: How to Improve Your Own Writing (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1985), pp. 22–29.

Einsohn, Amy, The Copyeditor’s Handbook (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), p. 360.

Garner, Bryan, Garner’s Modern American Usage, 3rd ed.  (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 592.

Stevens, Matthew, Subtleties of Scientific Style (Thornleigh, Australia: ScienceScape Editing, 2007), p. 47.