4 ms·
This may be a nitpick. But the article repeatedly uses a short acronym that has a very common alternate meaning. That seems like an excellent example of somethi
by b3morales 5y ago
This may be a nitpick. But the article repeatedly uses a short acronym that has a very common alternate meaning. That seems like an excellent example of something to avoid. Doubly so if you're concerned about clarity for people with lower English skill levels.
"People with ID" means "people with identification" to me. My brain was thrown off by that phrase even in the plain version of the third and fourth paragraphs.
- JackFr 5y agoHardly a nitpick. It undermines the point of the article.
- Rayhem 5y agoI've often seen academics abbreviate their (highly uncommon) jargon in their papers and, short of a very firm length requirement, I don't understand why. My brain has to stop and parse it out every time I see it if the acronym isn't super common, and if you just prefer "QDs" to "quantum dots" because it's less typing then a) maybe writing papers shouldn't be the cornerstone of your profession and b) this is pretty much exactly what LaTeX macros are for.