Correct way of referencing equations, figures and tables inline?

What is the correct way of referencing an equation, figure of table inline? I would currently say something like:

It can be seen from Equation (11) that . . .

Inspection of Figure (3) shows . . .

Is this method—capital letter for Equation/Figure/Table and the actual reference in round brackets—acceptable?

174k 34 34 gold badges 419 419 silver badges 744 744 bronze badges asked Jun 1, 2014 at 12:13 671 1 1 gold badge 7 7 silver badges 12 12 bronze badges

I leave away the (), but I would not fault somebody for writing it exactly like you did, and it is certainly style / venue dependent. Check out other papers in your targeted journal / conference.

Commented Jun 1, 2014 at 12:18 Is this for a thesis or a journal/conference publication? Commented Jun 1, 2014 at 20:16

Well the question is for technical report writing in general, but I am starting on my masters thesis so this is probably the method I am planning on using.

Commented Jun 2, 2014 at 5:46 Use LaTeX and let it figure out inline referencing style. Commented Jun 2, 2014 at 10:49 Commented Jun 2, 2014 at 21:35

2 Answers 2

As far as I know, the standard in mathematics is:

Put parentheses around equation numbers; don't use the word "Equation" unless after a period.
"Figure/Table/Algorithm X", with no parentheses. Parentheses are reserved for equations, and square brackets for citations.

This follows from (11). Equation (12) does not hold in this case. See Figure 13 for further information.

In your LaTeX source, use from~\eqref and Figure~\ref , with nonbreaking spaces and \eqref for the equations.

(The standard in mathematics is LaTeX; Word is often frowned upon.)

That said, as already stated in aeismail's answer, every journal has its own house style, which may override the standard.

EDIT: see also the answers to Referencing non-equations as to why adding "Equation" is not a good idea: not all numbered formulas are equations.