Comments on: How you talk about your friends http://williamtozier.com/slurry/2005/10/28/how-you-talk-about-your-friends Pontification without all the gritty gravitas Mon, 13 Oct 2008 03:50:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Jonathan http://williamtozier.com/slurry/2005/10/28/how-you-talk-about-your-friends#comment-1232 Jonathan Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:26:54 +0000 http://williamtozier.com/slurry/?p=162#comment-1232 This is a test comment, but I'll make it substantive anyhow. Most of what I read conforms to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted To Biomedical Journals, approved by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in 2005. Current subscribers to these Requirements include the New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, the British Medical Journal, the Lancet, the Annals of Epidemiology, and the U.S. National Library of Medicine. This particular set of guidelines mandates the use of arabic numerals in parentheses for in-text citations, with an exception for essential personal communications, which must be cited with the communicants name and the date of the communication in parentheses in the text. What I've noticed recently is a trend towards strict use of this style alone, with no mention of the cited author(s) name(s), in the Introduction and Methods sections of biomedical articles. In the Discussion section, however, it is still fairly common to find the author(s) name(s) followed by the (#) tag for in-text references to previous or concurrent work relevant to the work presented in the article. That was the way I referenced everything in my dissertation, before I had ever heard of the Chicago style or any other standard format. I just thought it was important for the reader of my dissertation (assuming that there might actually be one--my best friend advised me to have my dissertation bound on all four sides) to get to know the names of the people who came before me in my area. Personally, I dislike the strictures in technical writing that have tended to depersonalize the research endeavour, i.e. statements that "A previous study showed..." (#) rather than "Doe et. al. found..." (#) and using the passive voice all the time. Science is done by people in the first person. Consigning the names of those real people to the References section means that many, if not most, journal article readers will seldom get to know who all has been or is active in a field because they will not take the time to read the full references. End of rant. [<i>Ed:  rewrapped</i>] This is a test comment, but I’ll make it substantive anyhow.

Most of what I read conforms to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted To Biomedical Journals, approved by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in 2005. Current subscribers to these Requirements include the New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, the British Medical Journal, the Lancet, the Annals of Epidemiology, and the U.S. National Library of Medicine. This particular set of guidelines mandates the use of arabic numerals in parentheses for in-text citations, with an exception for essential personal communications, which must be cited with the communicants name and the date of the communication in parentheses in the text.

What I’ve noticed recently is a trend towards strict use of this style alone, with no mention of the cited author(s) name(s), in the Introduction and Methods sections of biomedical articles. In the Discussion section, however, it is still fairly common to find the author(s) name(s) followed by the (#) tag for in-text references to previous or concurrent work relevant to the work presented in the article. That was the way I referenced everything in my dissertation, before I had ever heard of the Chicago style or any other standard format. I just thought it was important for the reader of my dissertation (assuming that there might actually be one–my best friend advised me to have my dissertation bound on all four sides) to get to know the names of the people who came before me in my area. Personally, I dislike the strictures in technical writing that have tended to depersonalize the research endeavour, i.e. statements that “A previous study showed…” (#) rather than “Doe et. al. found…” (#) and using the passive voice all the time. Science is done by people in the first person. Consigning the names of those real people to the References section means that many, if not most, journal article readers will seldom get to know who all has been or is active in a field because they will not take the time to read the full references.

End of rant.

[Ed:  rewrapped]

]]> By: Aaron http://williamtozier.com/slurry/2005/10/28/how-you-talk-about-your-friends#comment-168 Aaron Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:11:32 +0000 http://williamtozier.com/slurry/?p=162#comment-168 I also much prefer the numbers in square brackets approach of Physical Review over alternatives, e.g., Chicago Style (Friend and Friend, 2000) or the ambiguous parenthetical style (2), and especially over the similarly confusing superscript style that Nature likes. The two key advantages are a clear disambiguation from other kinds of notation (e.g., real parenthetical statements or equation references, and real footnotes or exponentiations), and more importantly a compact way to refer the interested reader to relevant past work. That being said, when I get cited using variations of the Chicago style, my ego does pleasantly inflate an incremental amount to see my name in print. But really, is that any basis for an entire citation system? I also much prefer the numbers in square brackets approach of Physical Review over alternatives, e.g., Chicago Style (Friend and Friend, 2000) or the ambiguous parenthetical style (2), and especially over the similarly confusing superscript style that Nature likes. The two key advantages are a clear disambiguation from other kinds of notation (e.g., real parenthetical statements or equation references, and real footnotes or exponentiations), and more importantly a compact way to refer the interested reader to relevant past work. That being said, when I get cited using variations of the Chicago style, my ego does pleasantly inflate an incremental amount to see my name in print. But really, is that any basis for an entire citation system?

]]> By: philipj http://williamtozier.com/slurry/2005/10/28/how-you-talk-about-your-friends#comment-167 philipj Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:13:47 +0000 http://williamtozier.com/slurry/?p=162#comment-167 I'm not sure about other fields, but in a lot of the journals I read (e.g., Physical Review Letters), citations are simply numbers in square brackets. I like it! Significantly more than superscript numbers, and I think even more than names and dates interupting the flow of a sentence. I’m not sure about other fields, but in a lot of the journals I read (e.g., Physical Review Letters), citations are simply numbers in square brackets. I like it! Significantly more than superscript numbers, and I think even more than names and dates interupting the flow of a sentence.

]]>