Function asked about fonts in his status update which inspired this question. What fonts do you think are the right ones in this field and which ones do universities and journals specify, in your experience?

Edited December 21, 20169 yr by StringJunky

Any standard easily read font suffices. Simply look at arxiv papers for examples. The font isn't important as long as it isn't distracting.

Edited December 21, 20169 yr by Mordred

For papers journals usually set their own fonts and formatting. Your manuscripts for review should be easily readable, which means sufficient font size, a standard serif font and 1.5 -2x spaced in most cases. Almost all that I receive are times New Roman.

For papers journals usually set their own fonts and formatting. Your manuscripts for review should be easily readable, which means sufficient font size, a standard serif font and 1.5 -2x spaced in most cases. Almost all that I receive are times New Roman.

I find the demand for that kind of spacing rather excessive.

I find the demand for that kind of spacing rather excessive.

It's useful for reviewing as it gives space for notes or arrows to notes.

 

To answer the op, I like computer modern.

It's useful for reviewing as it gives space for notes or arrows to notes.

To answer the op, I like computer modern.

Precisely. Also easier for spotting typos and similar. As I said, final type setting is done afterwards.

It's useful for reviewing as it gives space for notes or arrows to notes.

 

To answer the op, I like computer modern.

Never thought of that.

 

Yeah, that's a clear font.

Precisely. Also easier for spotting typos and similar. As I said, final type setting is done afterwards.

Right. Does the fact that TNR is used a lot reflect the age/generation of the authors?

Edited December 21, 20169 yr by StringJunky

Some general font rules.

 

1) In the days before computer screens, much study was put into serif v sans serif fonts. The serifs were found be a marked aid to accuracy and speed of reading of block or body text, by humans.

Special fonts for headlines were developed with different character aspect ratios and spacings for titles and headlines.

It was found that sans serif lettering were better for short posters etc, although many fancy fonts were developed for artistic style and effect.

 

2) I was also found that sans serif fonts were more legible in cinematography, where again short pieces of text were projected.

 

3) This was repeated on computer screens and projected computer presentations with the likes of Powerpoint, Astound, Flash etc.

 

4) You also mention for science and maths. This presents additional challenges since some fonts make it difficult to distinguish the letters I and L and the numeral 1. This can be important where there is no regular flow of English due to the use of symbols. Italics are often used in papers and some fonts have special italic versions. And of course there is a whole panoply of special scientific symbols out there, not available in either standard serif or non serif.

Never thought of that.

 

Yeah, that's a clear font.

 

Right. Does the fact that TNR is used a lot reflect the age/generation of the autors?

I think it is more because font selection is not deemed important and most just go with the default.

I think it is more because font selection is not deemed important and most just go with the default.

Right.

Some general font rules.

 

1) In the days before computer screens, much study was put into serif v sans serif fonts. The serifs were found be a marked aid to accuracy and speed of reading of block or body text, by humans.

 

 

Do you have a reference for that? I have searched for such research in the past and haven't found much that is credible.

 

 

I think it is more because font selection is not deemed important and most just go with the default.

 

 

Yep. I was going to say exactly that.

4) You also mention for science and maths. This presents additional challenges since some fonts make it difficult to distinguish the letters I and L and the numeral 1.

 

And that.

 

Do you have a reference for that? I have searched for such research in the past and haven't found much that is credible.

 

 

This is the best overview I found in the past when I looked. Most of the research seems pretty inconclusive.

http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/

Serifs or no, for the purposes of legibility seems rather fuzzy in conclusions I've read. Typified by this one:

 

 

Abstract

 

Using lower-case fonts varying only in serif size (0%, 5%, and 10% cap height), we assessed legibility using size thresholds and reading speed. Five percentage serif fonts were slightly more legible than sans serif, but the average inter-letter spacing increase that serifs themselves impose, predicts greater enhancement than we observed. RSVP and continuous reading speeds showed no effect of serifs. When text is small or distant, serifs may, then, produce a tiny legibility increase due to the concomitant increase in spacing. However, our data exhibited no difference in legibility between typefaces that differ only in the presence or absence of serifs.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698905003007 (Full text)

The answer seems to be, to use non serif and serif together where ambiguities may arise. Humans seem to like consistency/uniformity though and I imagine it wouldn't be popular because it may jar aesthetically.

The most prestigious journals won't even review the submission unless Comic Sans with multiple colors and random bolded letters are used. All of the best researched, most strongly supported, paradigm shifting ideas are delivered that way.

The most prestigious journals won't even review the submission unless Comic Sans with multiple colors and random bolded letters are used. All of the best researched, most strongly supported, paradigm shifting ideas are delivered that way.

It would certainly get you focused as you attempted to see through the noise

lol...guess you're submitting to Unicorns Monthly or Ribbon Circle