A few months ago, I was sitting across from a university’s materials science department lab manager at a trade show, sifting through the latest conference proceedings and vendor certifications that lined our tables. Halfway through our conversation, she paused, tapped the phrase “by type” in the margin of a 2022 paper she was reviewing for publication, and asked me a question I’d heard a hundred times as a supplier specializing in custom, grade-specific raw materials for academic labs: “Can ‘by type’ even be used in academic writing?” By Type
At first, I understood her hesitation. For years, “by type” has had a reputation as a vague, informal phrase, the kind of shorthand people use in casual emails (“We’ll split the inventory by type”) or quick internal notes that don’t need to hold up to peer review. But over the past decade, as I’ve worked with 100+ university labs refining their experimental protocols, refining our product specifications to meet their rigorous standards, I’ve seen that reputation miss a key detail: “by type” isn’t inherently vague—it’s a phrase that works when you pair it with the right context, and it’s become more essential as academic research has grown more specialized and fragmented.
My journey with this question started small, back in 2018, when a grad student at a public university approached me frustrated after a grant rejection. Her team had tested three batches of flame retardant, and in their methods section, they’d written “Samples were tested by type: fiber-reinforced, powder, and foam.” The grant panel had marked that line as “insufficiently specific,” saying “by type” left room for interpretation—had they used the same test conditions for every type? Did the “type” distinction refer to chemical composition, particle size, or application? That feedback led me to overhaul how I communicated with academic clients, and over the next three years, we revised our product data sheets, lab guides, and even the training materials we send to new researchers to frame “by type” as a precise tool, not a shortcut.
Today, I’ll walk through when “by type” works in academic writing, when it doesn’t, how to avoid the vagueness that led to that grad student’s grant rejection, and how our work as a specialized supplier has helped turn that phrase from a casual afterthought into a useful component of clear, credible research.
The Fine Line: When “By Type” Works (and When It Doesn’t)
First, let’s get the worst-case scenario out of the way: “by type” used without context is almost always a problem. Take a 2021 biology paper I reviewed for a client’s journal submission, which stated: “Cell cultures were sorted by type before analysis.” A month later, the journal editor sent it back with a note: “‘By type’ is undefined—does this refer to cell line, passage number, or morphological phenotype?” That’s the vague use people warn against, and it’s 100% avoidable.
But when you pair “by type” with a clear, predefined category that the research field already recognizes, the phrase becomes concise and precise—two of the most important traits in academic writing. Let’s go back to that materials science example from my early days as a supplier. If a researcher writes, “Raw magnesium alloys were sourced by type: AZ31 (aluminum alloyed), AZ91, and WE43 (rare-earth enhanced), per ASTM B90 standards,” that’s a valid use. “By type” here doesn’t leave room for confusion because every materials scientist knows that magnesium alloy “type” refers to standard designation codes set by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), a universally accepted framework. No panel will mark that line as vague because the category itself is standardized.
I see this same pattern play out across every field my clients work in. In environmental science, a paper might write: “Sediment cores were analyzed by type: riverine, lacustrine, and estuarine, based on USDA soil classification guidelines.” Here, “by type” references a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) framework that researchers use to categorize sediment globally, so the phrase is clear. In psychology, a study I supported last year wrote: “Participants were assigned to interventions by type: cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness-based stress reduction, or control group, based on DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for generalized anxiety disorder.” Again, “by type” ties directly to a preexisting, field-recognized categorization, so it’s not a shorthand—it’s a way to avoid repeating the same long category name over and over.
Where the line gets blurry is when the “type” being referenced is new or not widely accepted. A 2023 study in computer science had a line: “Algorithms were tested by type: new model variants developed for this study, baseline open-source models, and proprietary commercial tools.” The peer reviewer pointed out that “type” here wasn’t predefined, so readers couldn’t tell how the study defined “new model variants” or where the baseline models came from. That’s the kind of mistake that makes people dismiss “by type” entirely, but it’s not the phrase’s fault—it’s the writer’s failure to attach the category to a clear, verifiable standard or definition.
How Suppliers Like Us Have Helped Refine “By Type” for Academic Use
As someone who runs a small, specialized supplier for academic labs, I’ve seen firsthand how the growing specificity of research has made phrases like “by type” more necessary. Ten years ago, most academic labs bought generic raw materials or tools that were interchangeable across studies. Today, a materials science lab might test 12 different grades of carbon fiber for a single experiment, a biology lab might source 8 distinct monoclonal antibodies from three different vendors, and a chemistry lab might use 20 different nanoparticle sizes. For researchers, writing out every single category name every time would make methods sections 20% longer, according to a 2022 survey by the Council of Graduate Schools that polled 5,000 grad students across STEM fields.
That’s where our role as a supplier comes in. For the past five years, we’ve been working with academic labs to develop standardized “by type” frameworks for our products, so researchers don’t have to reinvent the wheel every time they write a paper. For example, our raw alumina ceramics, which are used in everything from lab equipment to biomedical implants, have 14 standard types, each defined by purity level (95%, 99%, 99.7%) and grain size (1 micron, 5 micron, 10 micron). We publish these definitions in every product data sheet, and we work with labs to update them annually based on new ASTM and ISO standards for ceramic materials.
Last year, a team at a midwestern university used our alumina ceramics in a study on orthopedic implant wear. In their methods section, they wrote: “Alumina ceramic pins were sourced by type: 99.7% purity, 1 micron grain size (product code AC-01) per ISO 6474-2 standards.” The line got past peer review on the first try, and the lead researcher later told me that if they’d tried to write out “by purity and grain size” every time they referenced the pins in results and discussion, they would have missed a deadline by a week.
We also help researchers avoid the mistake of overrelying on “by type” when they need more detail. For example, when a lab requests a custom batch of our lithium-ion cathode materials, we don’t just send a note back that says “batch by type.” We ask them to specify exactly what “type” means to their experiment—whether it’s nickel content, cobalt percentage, particle size distribution, or thermal stability. That communication process means when the researcher writes “Cathode materials were processed by type,” they already have a predefined, documented category that meets both our specs and the standards of their field.
I’ve also learned to spot when a researcher is using “by type” as a shortcut out of laziness, not precision. Early on, we had a client who would write “Samples were prepared by type” on every order, and we’d get a call every time from their lab manager asking what that meant. Now, we include a line in our first-order confirmation emails for academic clients: “‘By type’ is a flexible phrase—if you use it in your writing, we recommend pairing it with at least one verifiable standard or field-specific category. Need help defining your categories? Our technical team is on hand to assist.”
Common Myths About “By Type” in Academic Writing
Let’s address two of the biggest myths that keep people from using this phrase. The first myth is that “by type” is never formal enough for peer review. That’s just not true. I’ve seen “by type” used successfully in papers in journals like Nature Materials, The Journal of Clinical Oncology, and Environmental Science & Technology in the last two years, all paired with clear, field-specific categories. The key is that it’s not a standalone phrase—it’s a shorthand that refers to something already established in the research or in the field’s collective knowledge.
The second myth is that you need to avoid “by type” entirely if your field uses more specific terms. For example, some chemistry researchers tell me they avoid “by type” because “compound” or “grade” is more precise. But that’s a false dichotomy. If you’re categorizing a set of compounds, you can write “Compounds were tested by type: carboxylic acid derivatives, aromatic amines, and alkanes”—that’s just as precise as using “compounds” alone, and it’s more concise if you’re referring to multiple groups. The phrase doesn’t replace more specific terminology; it complements it.
Another mistake I’ve seen is using “by type” for something that’s not a discrete, defined category. For example, writing “Samples were selected by type of color” is vague because color isn’t a standardized category for most experiments. But if you write “Samples were selected by type of color: CIELAB L* values <30 (dark), 30–70 (medium), >70 (light) per ISO 11664 standards,” that’s precise. The difference is whether the category (color, in this case) is tied to a universal standard that other researchers can verify.
Practical Tips for Using “By Type” in Academic Writing
Based on my work with hundreds of academic labs, here’s how to use “by type” correctly, without risking reviewer pushback:
- Always tie “by type” to a verifiable standard or predefined category. If you’re working with materials, reference ASTM, ISO, or industry-specific standards. If you’re working with biological samples, reference guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO) or the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories (ISBER).
- Use “by type” only when the category is already known to your field. Don’t invent a new category and label it “by type” without defining it—reviewers will flag it as undefined. If you do introduce a new category, write it out first, then use “by type” as shorthand later in the paper.
- Avoid “by type” for highly specific, unique items. If you’re testing a single custom sample with no standardized category, writing “Sample S-12 was tested” is clearer than “Sample was tested by type.” Save “by type” for groups of three or more items that share a common category.
- If you’re sourcing materials or tools, work with your supplier to define your “type” categories upfront. Most specialized suppliers for academic labs (like us) have experience helping researchers align their categories with field standards, so you won’t have to spend weeks debating what “type” means for your experiment.
For example, a grad student at a large state university reached out to us last semester because she was struggling to write her methods section for a paper on soil microplastics. She’d written “Microplastics were sorted by type” in her draft, and her advisor said it was too vague. We worked with her technical team to define the types based on ISO 17556, the standard for microplastic classification: “microbeads (1–100 microns), fibers (aspect ratio >3:1), fragments (irregular shape), and films (flat, thin structure).” She revised her line to “Microplastics were sorted by type, per ISO 17556 standards: microbeads, fibers, fragments, and films,” and the paper was accepted in Environmental Pollution two months later.
A Final Thought on Clarity Over Perfection
At the end of the day, academic writing is about communication—whether you’re explaining a new experiment to your lab mate, a peer in another field, or a reviewer who’s never seen your work before. “By type” is a tool, not a rule, and it works when it makes your writing clearer, not when it feels like a casual afterthought.
As a supplier, I’ve seen too many good research papers get rejected because authors are scared to use a phrase that could be clear, or they overcomplicate their methods sections with unnecessary detail just to avoid a single word. The grad student I mentioned at the start of this piece—who had her grant rejected in 2018 because of that “by type” line—went on to win a National Science Foundation grant two years later, and in the winning proposal, she wrote, “Flame retardant samples were tested by type, per NFPA 701 standards: fiber-reinforced, powder, and foam.” The panel didn’t mark it as vague—they noted it was clear, concise, and aligned with industry standards.
By Person If you’re an academic researcher working with specialized materials or tools, and you’re looking for a supplier that understands the need for clear, standard-aligned specifications for your writing, we’re here to help. Our technical team works with labs across disciplines to define type categories that meet field standards, and we provide detailed, verifiable documentation for every batch we supply, so you can feel confident using “by type” (or any other phrase) in your work without risking rejection.
References
- American Society for Testing and Materials. (2022). Standard Specification for Magnesium Alloys for Castings and Forgings. ASTM B90-22.
- Council of Graduate Schools. (2022). Methods Section Clarity in STEM Research: A Survey of Graduate Students and Faculty. CGS Press.
- International Organization for Standardization. (2020). Plastics – Determination of the Toxicity of Marine Sediment and Related Materials to the Polychaete Worm Hediste diversicolor. ISO 17556:2020.
- International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Implants for Surgery – Ceramic Materials Based on Alumina. ISO 6474-2:2018.
- National Fire Protection Association. (2018). Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Flame Resistant Textiles and Films. NFPA 701-18.
Shenyang Magic Life Co., Ltd.
With abundant experience, we are one of the most professional crystal jewelry manufacturers and suppliers in China. Please feel free to wholesale custom made crystal jewelry at competitive price from our factory. Good service and quality products are available.
Address: No.85-11 Kunshan West Road, Huanggu District, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China.
E-mail: jane@ziyuaqua.com
WebSite: https://www.ziyuaquas.com/
