After some analysis of methods sections in various journals, we found that just about everyone is using the vendor name and location (as if anyone is actually going to write a letter to a multinational corporation), but not the catalog number of a reagent in over 90% of the papers in neuroscience. Is there some reason not to use catalog numbers that I am not aware of?
I would like to ask why you want to add catalog no? Generally What I believe personally is Vendor name is enough to find out product. If you put yourself as Journal editor then you know this word create unnecessary density and if your journal is submitted to public search engine like Google then it may be chances of appearing as result when somebody do generalize search for catalog. Which will give wrong impression!
Ok so here is a statement from a paper by Paz et al., it is totally typical:
“the primary antibody against glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP; polyclonal, 1:500; Millipore, Temecula, CA)”. Searching the 2010 Millipore catalog revealed 40 GFAP antibodies, in 2011 it revealed 43 antibodies. A search of the Millipore catalog two years later, in March 2012, returned only 31 GFAP antibodies – raising doubts as to whether the antibody applied by Paz et al. even remains in the Millipore catalog. Is this acceptable as reproducible science?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Immunology
- Antibodies