startnotes
April 28, 2009 at 8:46 am | sam | literature, science communityEndnotes are the way to go in a scientific paper. Footnotes might work for a book, but they’re distracting and hard to locate quickly in an article. So cut it out, JOC.
The only thing worse than footnotes is startnotes: when all the references are listed at the beginning of the article. How does that make any sense? It really makes the paper look silly:
Is Optics Express just trying to be contrarian?
That paper by Ober is good, though.
| 5 Comments |
5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress, Theme Based on "Pool" by Borja Fernandez
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS.
^Top^
I recommend sidenotes. Easier to find. Looks More like a Webpage. Dare them!
Comment by jordan — April 28, 2009 #
endnotes = awesome! i totally agree.
Comment by psi*psi — April 28, 2009 #
whoa, that’s thinking outside the box. have you ever seen sidenotes in print?
or what about axialnotes: holographic notes that jump out of the page in 3d!
Comment by sam — April 28, 2009 #
Ooo, that could be good!
Comment by Will — April 28, 2009 #
Yeah but look at this page for example.
Footnotes if there’s a few, otherwise stick to end.
Comment by Will — April 28, 2009 #