Is it sometimes (or ever) acceptable to use in academic writing the abbreviation 'a.k.a.' ('also known as')?

  • 1
    I'd avoid it, but which academic field are you referring to? Conventions do vary. – Wayfaring Stranger Nov 1 '14 at 14:19
  • In one word: no. If you write it out in full, possibly. – Cerberus_Reinstate_Monica Nov 1 '14 at 16:05
  • Depending on the context, consider using i.e. instead. – JJM Driessen Aug 18 '16 at 14:35

If you're using it "literally" (i.e. - to specify an alternative name used naturally by [at least some] other people for the thing you're talking about) then it should be fine in most formal contexts. Except where the alternative designation itself is inherently informal (e.g. G W Bush aka "Dubya"), where it's a matter of whether mentioning the alternative name is appropriate, rather than aka.

What's not okay in academic contexts is the informal use of aka to introduce an ad-hoc alternative term purely to describe/characterise something - such as, for example, Houston's new Astrodome, aka. the Eighth Wonder of the World.

The above link includes a single period after aka, which I would say is never "correct". But although there are twice as many written instances of "[Alcatraz] Island, also known as The Rock", if you check the abbreviated usage it seems to me most writers don't include periods.

| improve this answer | |

Wikipedia Manual of Style, for one:

a.k.a. AKA Should only be used in small spaces. Otherwise use the full phrase. … Never use aka.


| improve this answer | |

No. A.k.a. is formal enough for police reports and journalism that covers the "crime beat." It has a specialized meaning appropriate to public statements about criminal aliases.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.