It seems that the list keeps growing but they are pretty much representing the same things. No matter what style is used, the same information is documented. So why do we need all of those?
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.
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.
In addition there is the question of quality. Some referees/editors check bibliographies, some don't. I recently saw a paper where two references were identical and actually wrong. The e-print contained the correct references. These days, most researchers (at least in the natural sciences) are using the bibliographies of papers indirectly: via abstracting and indexing services. It is vital for these services that references are formatted in predictable formats. Only the larger publishers can afford to deliver metadata in well-formatted XML (and even they fail to do so, sometimes) that can be easily parsed and resolved into recognized publications. For the remainder, if these services have to rely references in the form of plain text strings, and if these references are not formatted in some sort of standard format, then work will fail to get cited. It is as simple as that. In most fields, the current researcher has to rely on digital libraries to stay up-to-date and this will only get more dramatically true. In e.g. astronomy and physics, progress would be impossible without such electronic resources and as a result, automatically generated citation lists.
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,
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Citations