April 28, 2009 at 8:46 am | | literature, science community

Endnotes 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.


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. I recommend sidenotes. Easier to find. Looks More like a Webpage. Dare them!

    Comment by jordan — April 28, 2009 #

  2. endnotes = awesome! i totally agree.

    Comment by psi*psi — April 28, 2009 #

  3. 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 #

  4. Ooo, that could be good!

    Comment by Will — April 28, 2009 #

  5. Yeah but look at this page for example.

    Footnotes if there’s a few, otherwise stick to end.

    Comment by Will — April 28, 2009 #

Leave a comment

thanks for the comment

Powered by WordPress, Theme Based on "Pool" by Borja Fernandez
Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS.