2025.09.14 – Linguistic Review of a Scientific Manuscript: Analysis of Employed vs. Used and the Definite Article The

---

Key Findings

The assessment examined two linguistic issues in an anonymized scientific manuscript: the stylistic preference between employed and used, and the correct application of the definite article the in general scientific writing and in references to figures and tables. The analysis concluded that used is preferable when describing methods or instruments, while the should be used for specificity but omitted before figure and table references. The review was initiated by Subject L [anonymized], and the manuscript was authored by Author E [anonymized].

---

Confirmed Facts

1. At a specified recent date and local time in the Netherlands (details anonymized), Subject L [anonymized] requested a linguistic review of an English-language manuscript prepared by Author E [anonymized]. The focus of the inquiry involved two questions: the appropriateness of employed by versus used by, and the proper handling of the article the with respect to figures and tables.
2. In English, the phrase employed by most often denotes an employment or contractual relationship, for example in “She is employed by Microsoft.” Although occasionally found in older academic prose meaning “utilized,” this sense is formalistic and dated. In current scientific English, used by is strongly favored when describing theories, techniques, or instruments, because it provides clarity and aligns with common practice.
3. In the anonymized manuscript, several sample sentences illustrate the issue. One states: “In practice, the Judd-Ofelt theory is employed to determine …,” which would be better expressed as “the Judd-Ofelt theory is used to determine ….” Another example reads: “Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) was employed to assess …,” which should be revised to “TGA was used to assess ….” A further instance involves Fourier transform infrared analysis, where “was employed to gain …” should be updated to “was used to gain ….” In all cases, the subject is a method or instrument, not employment.
4. The second linguistic issue concerns the definite article the. In academic English, the provides necessary specificity when referring to defined or previously introduced terms. For example, “The density (ρ) of the BixDy and BTxDy glassy systems was determined …” uses the article correctly. However, international conventions require omitting the before references to numbered figures or tables, such as “As shown in Figure 3 ….” By contrast, “As shown in the Figure 3 …” would be nonstandard.
5. Examples in the anonymized manuscript demonstrate correct application of this convention. These include: “Figure 1 displays the X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of the BixDy and BTxDy glass series,” “Figure 5 presents the FTIR spectra of the BixDy and BTxDy glass systems …,” and “The calculated Y/B ratios … range from 0.500 to 0.830, as shown in Table 6 and insert in Figures 15 and 16.” These illustrate proper omission of the before numbered figures and tables while retaining it for other defined nouns.
6. The conclusions of the linguistic review are clear. All instances of employed used to describe methods or instruments should be replaced with used for contemporary academic appropriateness. The article the should be consistently applied for precision in general text but omitted before numbered figures and tables. This approach ensures alignment with international standards of scientific writing.

---