Whatever field of research we are in, we usually employ many commercial softwares for the analysis of our results. Whether it is Biology, Chemistry or Physics; we cite the commercial software with the manufacturer name in our publications. But, why not Microsoft Excel ? I think it is the most used software for making tables and graphs. Some people might say that we used to cite it, that is why I mentioned 'generally' because I have not encountered any such publication yet.
I have also considered citing Excel software, because I do use it as well to organise data before R analysis. Somehow I've felt a bit biased citing R, but not citing Excel. (And I also agree that Excel is actually capable of doing quite a bit descriptively.)
That said, in my opinion, if a software tool is considered to be poor (and still used), that would actually be even more reason *to cite* the software, as it might explain faulty results, and improve replicability.
BUT - as far as I understand, APA does not require authors to cite this software because it is considered to be "standard". However, as R increases in use, one might, according to this argument, then also consider *not* citing R. But from my perspective this would not be the right decision because there are author names associated with R, but there is no author's name associated with the Excel (as far as I know).
However, if you are keen to cite the software, a solution could be to *mention* Excel software in the text, even if you don't end up putting a reference at the end of your manuscript. This would increase transperancy, and improve replicability.
http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2015/01/how-to-cite-software-in-apa-style.html
Good luck with your research!
I agree with what Mohammad says. Also excel is hardly a proper tool for doing rigorous analysis. It lacks a lot of statistical tests and fitting functionality. In my opinion, it is even unsuitable for listing data due to the autocorrect features (see link). The fact that things are installed on a workstation does not mean they are the best tools for the trade!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15214961
Thank you both for your kind comments, but to continue this discussion, I will present my concerns over your comments.
1. Microsoft Excel is not solely made for simple calculations. It does a lot more. If it is not employed in final manuscript, still it is used throughout our research for quick analysis of results.
2. For sure, Microsoft Excel is not a statistical program, so it will lack the intelligence of other good programs of Statistics.
3. The article (PMID: 15214961) actually depicts the misuse of the software. Similar kind of data conversions (or errors) can occur in other softwares as well if we do not input the data as per its requirement. It does not mean the software lacks a functionality. It is the user who needs to operate it correctly.
I am not biased towards the software, but need some convincing answer(s) to my question.
My answer will disappoint you: being a Linux user I don't use Microsoft software at all, no matter that I have some equivalents installed on my machine. I prefer to quickly view my results (both theoretical and experimental) using gnuplot, as well as to produce final graphs in PostScript format (or any other equally suitable for publications). Fits included. Besides, my computations are usually outside the reach of spreadsheet(s).
I have also considered citing Excel software, because I do use it as well to organise data before R analysis. Somehow I've felt a bit biased citing R, but not citing Excel. (And I also agree that Excel is actually capable of doing quite a bit descriptively.)
That said, in my opinion, if a software tool is considered to be poor (and still used), that would actually be even more reason *to cite* the software, as it might explain faulty results, and improve replicability.
BUT - as far as I understand, APA does not require authors to cite this software because it is considered to be "standard". However, as R increases in use, one might, according to this argument, then also consider *not* citing R. But from my perspective this would not be the right decision because there are author names associated with R, but there is no author's name associated with the Excel (as far as I know).
However, if you are keen to cite the software, a solution could be to *mention* Excel software in the text, even if you don't end up putting a reference at the end of your manuscript. This would increase transperancy, and improve replicability.
http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2015/01/how-to-cite-software-in-apa-style.html
Good luck with your research!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry