[Misc] When should hyphenation be used with numbers and units?

[Is it PotG?]

I was asking for advice because I needed it. These publisher sods have created a mass of work for me, and I'm expecting push back. There's no need for you to comment if you have nothing helpful to add

I think the key here is consistency, similar to all we ask from referees and VAR.

Among others it must be said, you are a champion for grammar, apostrophes and correct English on this forum so asking such a question might seem out of sync.

Facts about pandemics, European laws and knees I get, but this is a whole-new-ball-game.

Just my view.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

With the measurements no hyphen is needed. 50 millilitres is 50ml. You need to hyphenate a compound adjective to avoid ambiguity. Compare "A man eating fish" to "a man-eating fish".

With the dark cycle thing, I'd say the publication is correct l. You've got 2 adjectives: 12-hour and dark but you don't need to link the 2 together with another hyphen.

Cheers.

I get your second point but 'dark' here is an abbreviation for 'darkness'. It is a noun, not an adjective. The whole expression is a kind of standard format abbreviation phrase albeit, as we see, the punctuation appears to be a challenge. So, it isn't that 12 hours were dark and 12 hours were light, because there was more than 24 hours. There is information not captured in the technical phrase, which is subject-specific. The full and precise description of what is meant is that in each consecutive 24 hour period there were 12 hours that were dark and 12 hours that were light and that these 12 hours alternated, with the timing of the alternation fixed, such that each consecutive day was identical in terms darkness and light

(I personally would write 'we used a 12 h light/dark cycle')

(in an animal research facility the lights go on and off according to a regulated cycle. It could be set to ambient day length, but to help global standardization everyone uses 12 of darkness and 12 of light. There is very little point in capturing this information in a research paper but there is a meme calle 'ARRIVE' which is a self-appointed group of scientists and vets who write guidance on animal research, and they are obsessed with transparency, so we all have to provide information in papers of no interest to anyone to fit with ARRIVE definitions of 'best practice'. Most of what we do is governed by national (we still use EU) laws so it would require a special licence and justification for varying a day/night cycle, or other regulated issues such as home cage size, bedding, feed, water, regularity of changing bedding feed and water, ambient room temperature, age of weaning, interval between purchase and use, etc. There really is no need for this to be captured in a research paper any more. The press editor of the same journal I am complaining about today asked me to provide full details 'consistent with ARRIVE' on a study a few years ago. I was certain what I had provided was appropriate so I thought '**** you' and added everything: the material used by the manufacturer to make the animal's bedding; the name and full address of the companies supplying the bedding, food cages, room temperature regulation system, etc. It went on for pages. I think they were too embarrassed to ask me to take it out again (that or, more likely, they didn't check what I'd done). Biology research is a racket, I tell thee!)

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think the key here is consistency, similar to all we ask from referees and VAR.

Among others it must be said, you are a champion for grammar, apostrophes and correct English on this forum so asking such a question might seem out of sync.

Facts about pandemics, European laws and knees I get, but this is a whole-new-ball-game.

Just my view.

Fair points, although you over-estimate my reach.

I have received many replies from people with expertise, and I am pleased to find that the hyphenation of numbers to units is universally derided, so I have learned something valuable, and for that I'm grateful.

The hive mind of NSC is a cracking resource from time to time

 

[Eric the meek]

I think the key here is consistency, similar to all we ask from referees and VAR.

Among others it must be said, you are a champion for grammar, apostrophes and correct English on this forum so asking such a question might seem out of sync.

Facts about pandemics, European laws and knees I get, but this is a whole-new-ball-game.

Just my view.

I'm sorry, but you don't get it. Trying to widen the issue is an irrelevance.

HWT is asking, because he cares about his output being right, and doesn't want his work altered - incorrectly - by 'adjudicators', and then still published in his name, thereby having his reputation diminished. I completely understand his point of view. (HWT, please do correct me if I am wrong).

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm sorry, but you don't get it. Trying to widen the issue is an irrelevance.

HWT is asking, because he cares about his output being right, and doesn't want his work altered - incorrectly - by 'adjudicators', and then still published in his name, thereby having his reputation diminished. I completely understand his point of view. (HWT, please do correct me if I am wrong).

You are absolutely spot on. I have a horror of having my name attached to egregious 'editing'. Quite separate from the issues outlined, I found that the press editors changed some of my text for 'easier reading' - and altered the sodding meaning. The absolute cheek of it. My being 'on the spectrum' means that this sort of malarkey causes extreme anguish because, of course, it means I have to go through every one of the thousands of words, referring to my accepted manuscript, with the extra challenge of knowing that any 'edited' text will likely slip past the eyeballs more easily than my precise nuanced text making the eff ups hard to spot unless I actually do flip back and forth between the two texts. As the footballers say when the ref cracks off a shitehouse decision: "HOW? ".

I am never quite sure whether PotG deliberately trolls me, or simply lacks good judgement and understanding. It is a suspicion it is mostly the latter that makes me respond more patiently than his post may seem to deserve. It is his repeatedly giving my more terse replies a 'thumbs up' that suggests my generosity may be undeserved.

Anyway....

 

[PeterOut]

You are absolutely spot on. I have a horror of having my name attached to egregious 'editing'. Quite separate from the issues outlined, I found that the press editors changed some of my text for 'easier reading' - and altered the sodding meaning. The absolute cheek of it. My being 'on the spectrum' means that this sort of malarkey causes extreme anguish because, of course, it means I have to go through every one of the thousands of words, referring to my accepted manuscript, with the extra challenge of knowing that any 'edited' text will likely slip past the eyeballs more easily than my precise nuanced text making the eff ups hard to spot unless I actually do flip back and forth between the two texts. As the footballers say when the ref cracks off a shitehouse decision: "HOW? ".

I am never quite sure wither PotG deliberately trolls me, or simply lacks good judgement and understanding. It is a suspicion it is mostly the latter that makes me respond more patiently than his post may seem to deserve. It is his repeatedly giving my more terse replies a 'thumbs up' that suggests my generosity may be undeserved.

Anyway....

If you can get a copy of the published version into MSWord (either direct from the publishers, or copy and paste from a PDF / Web version), then Word will automatically do a comparison and show you every difference between the two documents.
Look up 'MSWord file compare' - it will save you hours.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If you can get a copy of the published version into MSWord (either direct from the publishers, or copy and paste from a PDF / Web version), then Word will automatically do a comparison and show you every difference between the two documents.
Look up 'MSWord file compare' - it will save you hours.

Cheers!

Unfortunately the publisher won't do that. They edit using bespoke software. They control the editing of the proofs, too, and I can only advise, by using their software to access their version of my document, online. I can't download it and edit it. They really are provocative ****ers. As Peter Cook would have said, ****ing provocative.

 

[Eric the meek]

You are absolutely spot on. I have a horror of having my name attached to egregious 'editing'. Quite separate from the issues outlined, I found that the press editors changed some of my text for 'easier reading' - and altered the sodding meaning. The absolute cheek of it. My being 'on the spectrum' means that this sort of malarkey causes extreme anguish because, of course, it means I have to go through every one of the thousands of words, referring to my accepted manuscript, with the extra challenge of knowing that any 'edited' text will likely slip past the eyeballs more easily than my precise nuanced text making the eff ups hard to spot unless I actually do flip back and forth between the two texts. As the footballers say when the ref cracks off a shitehouse decision: "HOW? ".

I am never quite sure wither PotG deliberately trolls me, or simply lacks good judgement and understanding. It is a suspicion it is mostly the latter that makes me respond more patiently than his post may seem to deserve. It is his repeatedly giving my more terse replies a 'thumbs up' that suggests my generosity may be undeserved.

Anyway....

Many years ago, one of my lecturers 'spell-checked' an article of mine before publication in a journal. Every single one of his spelling corrections was wrong. It was before word processors, so my article got published, complete with his spelling errors, in my name. I was distraught, incandescent and several other words which don't exist.

I'm unsure about PotG. His criticism of your question was odd. He appears to have some other agenda, other than to help you with confirming, or otherwise, your thinking on hyphenation. My approach would be to take no crap. Zero tolerance. Note that my response to him was the sanitised version, post review.

Best of luck in your skirmish with the editors. At least you have a few links to 'insert' if required !

 

[jabba]

Fair points, although you over-estimate my reach.

I have received many replies from people with expertise, and I am pleased to find that the hyphenation of numbers to units is universally derided, so I have learned something valuable, and for that I'm grateful.

The hive mind of NSC is a cracking resource from time to time

There is some leeway I think. For instance I would not have put a hyphen in overestimate. I would never put one between the number and unit, but unless the publisher's editors have made an edit that is clearly wrong or changes your intent I'd let them do their job and not expend energy fighting it. Revel in the fact you have your paper accepted and will be published.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Many years ago, one of my lecturers 'spell-checked' an article of mine before publication in a journal. Every single one of his spelling corrections was wrong. It was before word processors, so my article got published, complete with his spelling errors, in my name. I was distraught, incandescent and several other words which don't exist.

I'm unsure about PotG. His criticism of your question was odd. He appears to have some other agenda, other than to help you with confirming, or otherwise, your thinking on hyphenation. My approach would be to take no crap. Zero tolerance. Note that my response to him was the sanitised version, post review.

Best of luck in your skirmish with the editors. At least you have a few links to 'insert' if required !

Excellent. Eric the not-so-meek

Another agenda, indeed....

I'm not generally a crap-taker, as you may have noticed

 

[McTavish]

(I personally would write 'we used a 12 h light/dark cycle')

This seems ambiguous to me. Knowing nothing about the subject, I might think that this refers to a period of 12 hours of which some was light and some dark. Referring to a 12-h light/12-h dark cycle seems more clearly to represent what actually happened.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This seems ambiguous to me. Knowing nothing about the subject, I might think that this refers to a period of 12 hours of which some was light and some dark. Referring to a 12-h light/12-h dark cycle seems more clearly to represent what actually happened.

Context is everything. You are correct but the extra value from the extra text is moot; the reader will already know we are talking about how many hours a day the lights are on in the animal facility. If a fixed ratio is reported it will be inferred that it doesn't vary. And when it is 12:12 there is no confusion about which is dark and which isn't

I was just reading a hooliganism thread on gold with posts from 10+ years ago. It reads like a generation (or more) ago. And I'm 63, FFS. Times change.