{"id":3474,"date":"2026-10-26T12:36:44","date_gmt":"2026-10-26T04:36:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.cityvibescv.com\/blog\/?p=3474"},"modified":"2026-10-26T12:36:44","modified_gmt":"2026-10-26T04:36:44","slug":"can-by-type-be-used-in-academic-writing-45aa-cd1d4f","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.cityvibescv.com\/blog\/2026\/10\/26\/can-by-type-be-used-in-academic-writing-45aa-cd1d4f\/","title":{"rendered":"Can ‘By Type’ be used in academic writing?"},"content":{"rendered":"

A few months ago, I was sitting across from a university\u2019s 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 \u201cby type\u201d in the margin of a 2022 paper she was reviewing for publication, and asked me a question I\u2019d heard a hundred times as a supplier specializing in custom, grade-specific raw materials for academic labs: \u201cCan \u2018by type\u2019 even be used in academic writing?\u201d By Type<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

At first, I understood her hesitation. For years, \u201cby type\u201d has had a reputation as a vague, informal phrase, the kind of shorthand people use in casual emails (\u201cWe\u2019ll split the inventory by type\u201d) or quick internal notes that don\u2019t need to hold up to peer review. But over the past decade, as I\u2019ve worked with 100+ university labs refining their experimental protocols, refining our product specifications to meet their rigorous standards, I\u2019ve seen that reputation miss a key detail: \u201cby type\u201d isn\u2019t inherently vague\u2014it\u2019s a phrase that works when you pair it with the right context, and it\u2019s become more essential as academic research has grown more specialized and fragmented.<\/p>\n

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\u2019d written \u201cSamples were tested by type: fiber-reinforced, powder, and foam.\u201d The grant panel had marked that line as \u201cinsufficiently specific,\u201d saying \u201cby type\u201d left room for interpretation\u2014had they used the same test conditions for every type? Did the \u201ctype\u201d 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 \u201cby type\u201d as a precise tool, not a shortcut.<\/p>\n

Today, I\u2019ll walk through when \u201cby type\u201d works in academic writing, when it doesn\u2019t, how to avoid the vagueness that led to that grad student\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

The Fine Line: When \u201cBy Type\u201d Works (and When It Doesn\u2019t)<\/h3>\n

First, let\u2019s get the worst-case scenario out of the way: \u201cby type\u201d used without context is almost always a problem. Take a 2021 biology paper I reviewed for a client\u2019s journal submission, which stated: \u201cCell cultures were sorted by type before analysis.\u201d A month later, the journal editor sent it back with a note: \u201c\u2018By type\u2019 is undefined\u2014does this refer to cell line, passage number, or morphological phenotype?\u201d That\u2019s the vague use people warn against, and it\u2019s 100% avoidable.<\/p>\n

But when you pair \u201cby type\u201d with a clear, predefined category that the research field already recognizes, the phrase becomes concise and precise\u2014two of the most important traits in academic writing. Let\u2019s go back to that materials science example from my early days as a supplier. If a researcher writes, \u201cRaw magnesium alloys were sourced by type: AZ31 (aluminum alloyed), AZ91, and WE43 (rare-earth enhanced), per ASTM B90 standards,\u201d that\u2019s a valid use. \u201cBy type\u201d here doesn\u2019t leave room for confusion because every materials scientist knows that magnesium alloy \u201ctype\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

I see this same pattern play out across every field my clients work in. In environmental science, a paper might write: \u201cSediment cores were analyzed by type: riverine, lacustrine, and estuarine, based on USDA soil classification guidelines.\u201d Here, \u201cby type\u201d 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: \u201cParticipants 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.\u201d Again, \u201cby type\u201d ties directly to a preexisting, field-recognized categorization, so it\u2019s not a shorthand\u2014it\u2019s a way to avoid repeating the same long category name over and over.<\/p>\n

Where the line gets blurry is when the \u201ctype\u201d being referenced is new or not widely accepted. A 2023 study in computer science had a line: \u201cAlgorithms were tested by type: new model variants developed for this study, baseline open-source models, and proprietary commercial tools.\u201d The peer reviewer pointed out that \u201ctype\u201d here wasn\u2019t predefined, so readers couldn\u2019t tell how the study defined \u201cnew model variants\u201d or where the baseline models came from. That\u2019s the kind of mistake that makes people dismiss \u201cby type\u201d entirely, but it\u2019s not the phrase\u2019s fault\u2014it\u2019s the writer\u2019s failure to attach the category to a clear, verifiable standard or definition.<\/p>\n

How Suppliers Like Us Have Helped Refine \u201cBy Type\u201d for Academic Use<\/h3>\n

As someone who runs a small, specialized supplier for academic labs, I\u2019ve seen firsthand how the growing specificity of research has made phrases like \u201cby type\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s where our role as a supplier comes in. For the past five years, we\u2019ve been working with academic labs to develop standardized \u201cby type\u201d frameworks for our products, so researchers don\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n

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: \u201cAlumina ceramic pins were sourced by type: 99.7% purity, 1 micron grain size (product code AC-01) per ISO 6474-2 standards.\u201d The line got past peer review on the first try, and the lead researcher later told me that if they\u2019d tried to write out \u201cby purity and grain size\u201d every time they referenced the pins in results and discussion, they would have missed a deadline by a week.<\/p>\n

We also help researchers avoid the mistake of overrelying on \u201cby type\u201d when they need more detail. For example, when a lab requests a custom batch of our lithium-ion cathode materials, we don\u2019t just send a note back that says \u201cbatch by type.\u201d We ask them to specify exactly what \u201ctype\u201d means to their experiment\u2014whether it\u2019s nickel content, cobalt percentage, particle size distribution, or thermal stability. That communication process means when the researcher writes \u201cCathode materials were processed by type,\u201d they already have a predefined, documented category that meets both our specs and the standards of their field.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve also learned to spot when a researcher is using \u201cby type\u201d as a shortcut out of laziness, not precision. Early on, we had a client who would write \u201cSamples were prepared by type\u201d on every order, and we\u2019d 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: \u201c\u2018By type\u2019 is a flexible phrase\u2014if 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Common Myths About \u201cBy Type\u201d in Academic Writing<\/h3>\n

Let\u2019s address two of the biggest myths that keep people from using this phrase. The first myth is that \u201cby type\u201d is never formal enough for peer review. That\u2019s just not true. I\u2019ve seen \u201cby type\u201d used successfully in papers in journals like Nature Materials<\/em>, The Journal of Clinical Oncology<\/em>, and Environmental Science & Technology<\/em> in the last two years, all paired with clear, field-specific categories. The key is that it\u2019s not a standalone phrase\u2014it\u2019s a shorthand that refers to something already established in the research or in the field\u2019s collective knowledge.<\/p>\n

The second myth is that you need to avoid \u201cby type\u201d entirely if your field uses more specific terms. For example, some chemistry researchers tell me they avoid \u201cby type\u201d because \u201ccompound\u201d or \u201cgrade\u201d is more precise. But that\u2019s a false dichotomy. If you\u2019re categorizing a set of compounds, you can write \u201cCompounds were tested by type: carboxylic acid derivatives, aromatic amines, and alkanes\u201d\u2014that\u2019s just as precise as using \u201ccompounds\u201d alone, and it\u2019s more concise if you\u2019re referring to multiple groups. The phrase doesn\u2019t replace more specific terminology; it complements it.<\/p>\n

Another mistake I\u2019ve seen is using \u201cby type\u201d for something that\u2019s not a discrete, defined category. For example, writing \u201cSamples were selected by type of color\u201d is vague because color isn\u2019t a standardized category for most experiments. But if you write \u201cSamples were selected by type of color: CIELAB L* values <30 (dark), 30\u201370 (medium), >70 (light) per ISO 11664 standards,\u201d that\u2019s precise. The difference is whether the category (color, in this case) is tied to a universal standard that other researchers can verify.<\/p>\n

Practical Tips for Using \u201cBy Type\u201d in Academic Writing<\/h3>\n

Based on my work with hundreds of academic labs, here\u2019s how to use \u201cby type\u201d correctly, without risking reviewer pushback:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Always tie \u201cby type\u201d to a verifiable standard or predefined category. If you\u2019re working with materials, reference ASTM, ISO, or industry-specific standards. If you\u2019re working with biological samples, reference guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO) or the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories (ISBER).<\/li>\n
  2. Use \u201cby type\u201d only when the category is already known to your field. Don\u2019t invent a new category and label it \u201cby type\u201d without defining it\u2014reviewers will flag it as undefined. If you do introduce a new category, write it out first, then use \u201cby type\u201d as shorthand later in the paper.<\/li>\n
  3. Avoid \u201cby type\u201d for highly specific, unique items. If you\u2019re testing a single custom sample with no standardized category, writing \u201cSample S-12 was tested\u201d is clearer than \u201cSample was tested by type.\u201d Save \u201cby type\u201d for groups of three or more items that share a common category.<\/li>\n
  4. If you\u2019re sourcing materials or tools, work with your supplier to define your \u201ctype\u201d categories upfront. Most specialized suppliers for academic labs (like us) have experience helping researchers align their categories with field standards, so you won\u2019t have to spend weeks debating what \u201ctype\u201d means for your experiment.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    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\u2019d written \u201cMicroplastics were sorted by type\u201d 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: \u201cmicrobeads (1\u2013100 microns), fibers (aspect ratio >3:1), fragments (irregular shape), and films (flat, thin structure).\u201d She revised her line to \u201cMicroplastics were sorted by type, per ISO 17556 standards: microbeads, fibers, fragments, and films,\u201d and the paper was accepted in Environmental Pollution<\/em> two months later.<\/p>\n

    A Final Thought on Clarity Over Perfection<\/h3>\n

    At the end of the day, academic writing is about communication\u2014whether you\u2019re explaining a new experiment to your lab mate, a peer in another field, or a reviewer who\u2019s never seen your work before. \u201cBy type\u201d is a tool, not a rule, and it works when it makes your writing clearer, not when it feels like a casual afterthought.<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    As a supplier, I\u2019ve 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\u2014who had her grant rejected in 2018 because of that \u201cby type\u201d line\u2014went on to win a National Science Foundation grant two years later, and in the winning proposal, she wrote, \u201cFlame retardant samples were tested by type, per NFPA 701 standards: fiber-reinforced, powder, and foam.\u201d The panel didn\u2019t mark it as vague\u2014they noted it was clear, concise, and aligned with industry standards.<\/p>\n

    By Person<\/a> If you\u2019re an academic researcher working with specialized materials or tools, and you\u2019re looking for a supplier that understands the need for clear, standard-aligned specifications for your writing, we\u2019re 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 \u201cby type\u201d (or any other phrase) in your work without risking rejection.<\/p>\n

    References<\/h3>\n
      \n
    1. American Society for Testing and Materials. (2022). Standard Specification for Magnesium Alloys for Castings and Forgings. ASTM B90-22.<\/li>\n
    2. Council of Graduate Schools. (2022). Methods Section Clarity in STEM Research: A Survey of Graduate Students and Faculty. CGS Press.<\/li>\n
    3. International Organization for Standardization. (2020). Plastics \u2013 Determination of the Toxicity of Marine Sediment and Related Materials to the Polychaete Worm Hediste diversicolor<\/em>. ISO 17556:2020.<\/li>\n
    4. International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Implants for Surgery \u2013 Ceramic Materials Based on Alumina. ISO 6474-2:2018.<\/li>\n
    5. National Fire Protection Association. (2018). Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Flame Resistant Textiles and Films. NFPA 701-18.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \n

      Shenyang Magic Life Co., Ltd.<\/a>
      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\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      A few months ago, I was sitting across from a university\u2019s materials science department lab manager … Can ‘By Type’ be used in academic writing?<\/span>Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":372,"featured_media":3474,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[3437],"class_list":["post-3474","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-industry","tag-by-type-4c7f-ce96d1"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.cityvibescv.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3474","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.cityvibescv.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.cityvibescv.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.cityvibescv.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/372"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.cityvibescv.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3474"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.cityvibescv.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3474\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.cityvibescv.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3474"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.cityvibescv.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.cityvibescv.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.cityvibescv.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}