Up to the best of my knowledge, there are more than 32 referencing styles. The differences between most of them are not much. I think we don`t need that much referencing styles.

Yes I do agree with you... although offering different styles could have advantages, the main disadvantage I face that such different styling might impact the citation and mismatch some of the main articles.

I think it is bordering on ridiculous since there is nothing really that one captures that the others are not or cannot capture. All of this is bordering on confusion for the most part and a complete waste of time. When will this end? who is going to put a stop to it? Before you know it someone else comes up with another one and the saga continues with us researchers caught in the middle.

Coincidentally I was thinking that the other day. I think universities should agree in each country and make a proposal to the Minister of Education. Then every minister of education, should discuss at the United Nations. And define a style only. Then the challenge is to make software that forms the simplest task validations and reprimands.

Having a unique style, allow better dissemination of intellectual works. And consequently, more effective science.

I like this question!

It would be great if there is a universal referencing style...

Of course with the use of endnote like software it would be more easy to choose different reference styles, still it's better to have a universal reference format.

I totally agree with you. I think it will be better if we have only one referencing style for all to minimize confusion...

Oh the bane of academic scruples!

I think we only need one. I prefer Chicago style above the rest, but I think the endless rules that attempt to cover every possible scenario is way too tedious. General guidelines should be all we need, and the purpose of citation kept in mind---enough information that the person reading could locate the source.

refeering style should standadise. Now each publication is having its own format. its should be amicably settled to a single format.

The list just keeps getting bigger and bigger and as I stated more confusing for the authors. If you are just publishing with one journal the problem is not even as pronounced but when you publish with different journals with different styles it is very tedious...and downright annoying.

It is a big problem to change from style to another, however all of them include the same information!

I think the journal editors should only check if the reference could be accessed or not, then it should go. Complications with no sense!

Regards,

I love this discussion and the question that is launched. Infact, I got frustated by looking at the pin point details of "a library" of different referencing styles and I thought for a moment, why does a researcher has to go through all this when one just wants to properly share his research work. To be more productive in our fields this referencing issue should have been a lot more easier. An Endnote makes it easier in many cases but if you aiming for a good and relevant journal that has a tailor made referencing style with no specific name then again you cannot take help from Endnote. Its high time that this referencing issue should be standardized with only a limited styles allowed. When scientists can gather and formulate universal methods of naming millions of compounds in IUPAC convention, why can't they get on one page to resolve this intricate referencing issue? It is really a moment to think for all of us.

Almost 3 decades ago I did part-time word processing and formatting for academy students, who did not know how to write references at all. I always followed the Umberto Eco's approach as described in How to Write a Thesis, which is, by far, the most clear, comprehensive, and logic way to write a reference I'm aware of. After learning from his book, all other styles pale in comparison and seem obvious to me that they are nothing else but academic detritus projected for the sake of institutional image. That is why there are so many styles. When I need to write a reference, I still do it the Eco's way.

Dear Mardene Rosalee Carr Completely agree with your thoughts.

I am currently using time changing from AMA style to Vancouver for a conference. Google Scholar, for example, does not often provide the editors for conference so I am using time digging into websites for this. I didn´t need the Vancouver reference format to find the references and I nobody needs it to find the things I am citing.

For a conference here is the format:

Author of contribution’s Surname AA, Surname BB, Surname CC. Title of contribution. In: Editor(s) Surname AA, editor(s). Title of proceedings. Title of conference. Date of conference; Place of conference. Place of publication: Publisher; Year of publication. page.

That yields this slab where the year is at the end and I am providing unneeded data such as the conference taking place on 08th to 9th September. Also, the irritating conceit of place of publication first, then the publisher: London: Penguin. Is that more helpful than Penguin, London?

Vavik, T. Strategies for teaching universal design. In: Kovacevic A, Ion W, McMahon C, Buck , Hogarth P, editors. DS 69: Proceedings of E&PDE 2011, the 13th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, 08.-09.09. 2011, London, UK: Design Society, 2011.

Collectively in design research we need to allow "your paper, your style".