Nicholas - a good question to answer. Not sure that I can answer from the point of view of what a 'generic' style should look like (maybe later in this chain) - but I can certainly state the case for a universal system. I came to New Zealand from the UK several years ago. My experiences were almost exclusive to using Harvard in UK and European-base journals. Then I came here and was introduced to what seemed like a foreign language; APA. It took what seemed a lifetime to adapt - and then there is numerical styles, such as Vancouver, to add to the rich mix. Personally, I would love to see a universal one-stop convention that applied to all reference criteria. I doubt that will happen in the near future. Especially so - as many journals use an 'adaptation' or 'variation' of whatever style they claim to use - without any recourse or accountability to the originators - such as APA, AMA etc

@ Dean - good point. Many journals say they use X, but then arbitrarily stipulate full stops, commas, bold & italic usage that does not comply with the current version of the style & is often mixed.

I too will wait a bit before suggesting an overall style, but in brief: I like super-script numbers (as they do not interrupt your view of sentences), author-date helps contextualise information as you read, footnotes are good to give a bit of added information but things like legal footnotes often have more text than is actually in the main body, italics are good to highlight the publication or event, bold is a bit 'in your face' and I cannot see the point in highlighting only a volume ....

We perhaps need something that is simple, logical, supports the reader and is readily applicable to as many fields as possible. I anticipate a number of traditionalists and clever folk who will say it is necessarily complex (but probably unable to articulate why), that different fields need different styles (but probably unable to articulate why), or that we don't need to change something that 'aint broke .....

The current mix is used around the world, each style has its proponents and the mainstream versions are established in orthodoxy, but that does not mean that we cannot develop the practice and improve its functionality and user interface. If we consider referencing style as a tool, then surely we want to maximise efficiency and promote standard usage?

Nicholas - I will vote that answer up. Of course, if common- sense prevailed, then we would have a universal 'one-stop' format that all could relate to and comply with. What I would like to know is 'who originates and perpetuates different styles - to 'keep us all on our feet'?

@Dean: I suspect that certain arbitrary specifications are attempts to lock us into particular journals and publishers. Nobody seems to know that there is indeed an international standard: ISO690! The only current solution then is to use e.g. Qiqqa to store the references in BibTeX format until required to be output according to the foibles of the particular journal publisher.

In today's academia being more and more fixated on impact, it is almost inevitable to use a reference section ordered by surnames (in Thai language publications ordered by first names, of course) to trace your citations. I don't like this style, though, and favour numbers pointing at the final reference section.

Different fields of study have their own traditional styles, obviously. So, it's going to be tilting at windmills to demand a unique style across disciplines. It is nevertheless desirable, because many papers have to be sent to more than one journal leading to all the bureaucratic efforts to adjust citations and references. There is another thread here on RG asking, whether we authors should demand publishers to free us from formatting papers at the first submission. Haven't found it yet.

ISO690 gives you some wriggle space; it is not too prescriptive.

I think a good idea would be agree to always to send the first submission in unformatted form, but still alphabetic (or numeric) so that it can be verified. Then formatting time can overlap with refereeing time.

Firstly, I would like to apologise to everyone for the changes that a RG editor has made to the wording of my original question - Referencing Styles: what do you like and dislike about the various orthodox styles & what would you change if you could ? Now that 'Referencing Styles' has been removed, I am not sure if people will easily tell what the question is about ... Never had a question or post moderated before and (horror of horrors) it seems to have negatively influenced my RG score !

@Ian - I have never had the opportunity of sending an unformatted submission. I always treat texts as 'final' before I press send & barring one paper which collected more dents than a bit of rugby club silver, it has always worked well for me :-) I will check out the ISO690 though. I never knew that there was an international standard on referencing though - staffing, straightness of bananas, formulations of high tensile steel, but never referencing. We learn something new every day.

Hey everyone - very well informed debate here from those that seem to be well-informed and 'in the know'. I take your point Ian about journals, or publishing houses, wanting to format differently - but I don't see what is in it for them. I bet that many a hard-working copy editor/proof reader is wishing for the day that a universal system is adopted and, for that matter too, I think that most authors and readers would be happy enough as well - not having to differentiate between the nuances of say APA 5th and 6th edition!!