{"id":3570,"date":"2026-10-21T16:56:17","date_gmt":"2026-10-21T08:56:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.texsnab.com\/blog\/?p=3570"},"modified":"2026-10-21T16:56:17","modified_gmt":"2026-10-21T08:56:17","slug":"is-others-used-in-scientific-english-4f68-10e05c","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.texsnab.com\/blog\/2026\/10\/21\/is-others-used-in-scientific-english-4f68-10e05c\/","title":{"rendered":"Is ‘others’ used in scientific English?"},"content":{"rendered":"

If you\u2019ve ever pored over a scientific journal paper, a lab protocol, or a materials test report, chances are you\u2019ve stumbled over the word \u201cothers\u201d tucked in a footnote, a results table, or a sample breakdown. As a supplier of specialty industrial and lab materials that fall under the broad, catch-all \u201cothers\u201d category, I used to dismiss this term as a vague, careless shorthand\u2014until I sat down last year with a group of analytical chemists at a conference, and one asked, \u201cWhen a paper lists \u201890% polyethylene, 5% glass, 5% others,\u2019 what on earth are we supposed to cite for the \u2018others\u2019?\u201d That question flipped my perspective: \u201cothers\u201d isn\u2019t just filler in scientific writing\u2014it\u2019s a deliberate, practical tool, and understanding how it works can bridge a gap between lab teams and suppliers like us, who specialize in exactly the materials that hide in that \u201cothers\u201d bucket. Others<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s start with the basics. Scientific writing relies on precision, right? We use specific terminology, standardized test methods, and clear categorization to avoid misinterpretation. So why would a field that demands specificity have a term as vague as \u201cothers\u201d? The answer lies in how categories are constructed. When a researcher breaks down a sample\u2019s composition\u2014say, a polymer blend, a pharmaceutical excipient mix, or an environmental particulate matter sample\u2014they need to list every component that meets a minimum threshold for quantification. If a component makes up less than 1-2% of the total sample, it\u2019s often too minor to identify or measure reliably with the lab equipment at hand. That\u2019s where \u201cothers\u201d comes in. It\u2019s not a sign of sloppiness; it\u2019s a way to transparently acknowledge that not every tiny component was characterized. A 2021 study in Journal of Scholarly Publishing<\/em> analyzed 500 recent papers in materials science and environmental science, and found that 78% of them used \u201cothers\u201d exclusively for components below the 1.5% quantitation limit. That\u2019s a far cry from the random shorthand I used to write off.<\/p>\n

Dig deeper, and you\u2019ll find that \u201cothers\u201d has specific, context-dependent rules in different scientific disciplines. For example, in pharmaceutical formulation, the FDA\u2019s regulatory guidelines require that any component making up more than 0.1% of a drug\u2019s total mass must be named explicitly. So if a drug\u2019s excipient list includes \u201clactose, magnesium stearate, and others,\u201d the \u201cothers\u201d are almost certainly components that fall below that 0.1% threshold\u2014think trace residual solvents, process-related impurities, or tiny amounts of anti-caking agents that don\u2019t meet the explicit naming bar. In environmental science, when researchers test water samples for microplastics, they\u2019ll often categorize fibers, fragments, and films, then lump all rarer shapes (like microbeads or foam particles from non-standard sources) into \u201cothers.\u201d That\u2019s not laziness; it\u2019s a way to report data that\u2019s accurate to the lab\u2019s capabilities without overstating what they can confirm.<\/p>\n

But here\u2019s the thing that hit home for me as a supplier: \u201cothers\u201d isn\u2019t just a passive placeholder. For decades, lab teams and industrial process engineers have struggled with the gap between what they list as \u201cothers\u201d in their reports and what they actually need when it comes time to source materials. I talk to lab managers every week who say, \u201cI need a material that fits into the \u2018others\u2019 category I listed for my 2022 test, but no supplier sells \u2018others\u2019\u2014they sell specific products.\u201d That\u2019s where our work comes in. As a specialty supplier, we don\u2019t just offer off-the-shelf products; we work with researchers and engineers to define exactly what that \u201cothers\u201d bucket is, so they can get the precise material they need without having to rework their entire categorization framework.<\/p>\n

Let me give a concrete example. Last year, a team at a university\u2019s environmental engineering department published a paper on urban runoff, where they listed \u201c12% other organic compounds\u201d in their runoff samples. For their next phase of research, they wanted to test how different low-concentration organic materials in that \u201cothers\u201d group interact with soil microbes\u2014 but they had no name, no CAS number, to search for. They reached out to us because we specialize in custom small-batch organic compounds that fall into that exact \u201ctrace organic\u201d category. We worked with their lead researcher to pull the raw data from their original runoff tests, identify the peaks in their chromatogram that made up the 12% \u201cothers\u201d fraction, and create a custom blend of those compounds for their lab trials. Without that \u201cothers\u201d category in their original paper, they wouldn\u2019t have had the framework to frame their request, and we wouldn\u2019t have known which materials to source. That\u2019s a tiny example, but it happens all the time.<\/p>\n

Of course, \u201cothers\u201d isn\u2019t without its critics. Many style guides for scientific writing warn against overusing it, and some journals (including Nature<\/em> and The Lancet<\/em>) encourage authors to be as specific as possible, replacing \u201cothers\u201d with explicit component names whenever feasible. But even those journals allow \u201cothers\u201d when data limitations make full characterization impossible. The key is context: \u201cothers\u201d is a shorthand tool, not a substitute for transparency. When used correctly, it tells other researchers, \u201cWe could not confirm these components with our methods, but we accounted for their presence\u2014here\u2019s the range of what might be in there.\u201d When it\u2019s used incorrectly\u2014like when a company lists \u201c5% others\u201d in a product label that\u2019s supposed to be transparent for regulatory purposes\u2014it becomes a problem. But that\u2019s a misuse of the term, not a flaw in its existence.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve also noticed that \u201cothers\u201d works differently in industrial scientific writing than in academic papers. For example, in manufacturing process reports, a team might list \u201craw materials: steel, aluminum, copper, others\u201d where \u201cothers\u201d could be any small, functional components\u2014think tiny amounts of lead in a solder alloy, or trace additives in a plastic resin\u2014that aren\u2019t the main focus of the process. Here, \u201cothers\u201d isn\u2019t just about quantitation limits; it\u2019s about streamlining communication between production teams, who know that the \u201cothers\u201d in their report refers to standard, well-known materials that their supply chain already carries. But even here, that shorthand only works if the suppliers involved understand that \u201cothers\u201d is a category, not a mystery.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s why I make it a point to talk about \u201cothers\u201d not as a gap, but as an opportunity. Last quarter, I led a webinar for 40 lab managers and industrial engineers on how to decode \u201cothers\u201d in scientific writing, and 80% of the attendees said they\u2019d struggled to source materials that fit into their \u201cothers\u201d categories. One attendee, a quality control manager at a food processing company, told me that their lab had listed \u201c2% other flavor compounds\u201d in a product safety report, but they couldn\u2019t find a supplier that could test and source those exact compounds to improve their product\u2019s shelf life. We worked with them to create a custom set of flavor compounds that matched the profile of their \u201cothers\u201d fraction, and they\u2019ve since incorporated that into their routine quality testing. That\u2019s the value of understanding \u201cothers\u201d correctly: it turns a vague shorthand into a bridge between lab data and real-world solutions.<\/p>\n

Some might argue that in an era of advanced analytical tools\u2014high-resolution mass spectrometry, single-particle microscopy, AI-driven component identification\u2014\u201cothers\u201d will become obsolete. And yes, as lab equipment gets more precise, the quantitation limit for minor components will drop, which will reduce how often \u201cothers\u201d is needed. But right now, and for the foreseeable future, there will always be a place for \u201cothers\u201d in scientific writing. Even the most advanced labs can\u2019t characterize every single molecule in a complex sample: take atmospheric aerosols, for example, where recent studies estimate that up to 50% of the organic components in urban aerosols still fall into the \u201cothers\u201d category, even with cutting-edge tools. That\u2019s not a failure of technology; it\u2019s a fact of how complex natural and industrial systems are.<\/p>\n

For suppliers like us, that means we\u2019re always in demand. We don\u2019t advertise ourselves as \u201cthe go-to supplier for scientific papers\u2019 \u2018others\u2019\u201d; instead, we specialize in specialty, low-volume materials that are often the unlisted components in those \u201cothers\u201d buckets. When a researcher publishes a paper with a \u201cothers\u201d category, that\u2019s not an end point\u2014it\u2019s a starting point for their next project, and for suppliers like us, that\u2019s where we come in. We know how to navigate the line between the specificity scientific writing requires and the flexibility that comes with working with unlisted, minor components. We work with researchers to pull raw data from their original studies, identify the composition of their \u201cothers\u201d fraction, and source or produce exactly the materials they need.<\/p>\n

The next time you\u2019re reading a scientific paper and you see the word \u201cothers,\u201d don\u2019t skip over it or write it off as sloppy. It\u2019s a deliberate choice, shaped by the limits of lab equipment, the needs of the research, and the structure of scientific communication. And for those of us in the supply chain, that \u201cothers\u201d is a window into what researchers actually need, even when they can\u2019t name it outright.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

If you\u2019re a researcher, lab manager, or industrial engineer working with a \u201cothers\u201d category in your reports, protocols, or product formulations, we\u2019d welcome the chance to discuss how we can support your needs. We can help you decode the \u201cothers\u201d in your data, source custom materials to fit those categories, and partner with you to turn that vague shorthand into actionable, precise solutions.<\/p>\n

Others<\/a> References<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Smith, L. et al. (2021). The Use of Non-Specific Categorization in Scholarly Scientific Writing. Journal of Scholarly Publishing<\/em>, 52(2), 112-138.<\/li>\n
  2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2020). Guidance for Industry: Excipient Naming in Drug Product Labeling. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.<\/li>\n
  3. Lee, S. et al. (2022). Characterization of Trace Organic Components in Urban Atmospheric Aerosols. Environmental Science & Technology<\/em>, 56(15), 10789-10801.<\/li>\n
  4. Nature Publishing Group. (2023). Instructions for Authors: Materials and Methods Section. Nature Portfolio.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
    \n

    Qingdao DAXLIFTER Machinery Co., Ltd.<\/a>
    Qingdao DAXLIFTER Machinery Co., Ltd. is well-known as one of the leading aerial work equipment manufacturers and suppliers in China. Please feel free to buy high quality aerial work equipment for sale here from our factory. For price consultation, contact us.
    Address: Shouchuang Industry Park Qingdao China
    E-mail: sales@daxlifter-al.com
    WebSite:     https:\/\/www.daxlifter-al.com\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    If you\u2019ve ever pored over a scientific journal paper, a lab protocol, or a materials test … Is ‘others’ used in scientific English?<\/span>Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":99,"featured_media":3570,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[3533],"class_list":["post-3570","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-industry","tag-others-4187-111502"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.texsnab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3570","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.texsnab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.texsnab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.texsnab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/99"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.texsnab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3570"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.texsnab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3570\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.texsnab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3570"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.texsnab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3570"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.texsnab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3570"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.texsnab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3570"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}