roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (07/21/87)
One of the users here is writing a manuscript for a jounal which
requires a strict (and strange) format which I don't think bib can handle
just by changing the macro file. We need:
1. First citation in the text of 3 authors is Smith, Watson & Crick, 1988.
2. Second citation of the same paper is Smith et al., 1988.
3. Four authors is always Smith et al, 1987.
4. In the reference list Smith preceeds Smith, Baker & Jones, which
precedes Smith and Jones, with no attention paid to date except for
a set of identical authors; then, Smith, Jones & Baker 1987a/b.
Has anybody made bib do this, preferably using -me troff macros?
Numbers 2 and 4 are the kickers.
*Flame on*
I'm pissed! I mean, *Jeeze*, why does every single goddamn
publisher have to go invent a new and incompatible format for references?
Researchers should spend their (expensive) time doing research, not wasting
time fighting with their word processor to meet the picayune details of 67
million different reference formats. The people *reading* the paper aren't
going to give a shit if there is a semicolon after the title or if the
volume number is in bold instead of italics, or if you list trailing page
numbers or not, why should the people writing it care!? And if publishers
think it is so goddamn important that this be done the way they want, why
don't they pay their copy editors to fix up the details and let the authors
spend their time doing important things like producing the data that the
paper describes? This is the real world, not junior high school.
*Flame off*
--
Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016cje@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Chris Jarocha-Ernst (Meteora's chess partner)) (07/22/87)
In article <2808@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > I'm pissed! I mean, *Jeeze*, why does every single goddamn > publisher have to go invent a new and incompatible format for references? > Researchers should spend their (expensive) time doing research, not wasting > time fighting with their word processor to meet the picayune details of 67 > million different reference formats. The people *reading* the paper aren't > going to give a shit if there is a semicolon after the title or if the > volume number is in bold instead of italics, or if you list trailing page > numbers or not, why should the people writing it care!? And if publishers > think it is so goddamn important that this be done the way they want, why > don't they pay their copy editors to fix up the details and let the authors > spend their time doing important things like producing the data that the > paper describes? This is the real world, not junior high school. In case you don't remember, that was a flame. One might make a similar argument against researchers "wasting" their time writing an article with correct grammar. After all, an editor can always correct it, right? While Roy does have a point regarding incompatable reference formats, he doesn't have *that* big a point. Most journals in a field follow a reference format agreed to by a professional association in that field, not one determined by the whim of an editor or publisher. The association has chosen or developed that reference format because they feel it's the one that makes the references easiest for their readers to understand (and therefore use, which is the point of references). So someone reading an article might very well care if the volume number isn't in boldface, as it makes it that much harder to find a particular issue of a journal if you can't see right away what volume it's in. (In other words, just because Roy can't see the sense in it doesn't mean there *is* no sense in it.) And regarding having copy editors toe the line on the references instead of the authors: 1) The author knows the particulars on the reference, not the copy editor. If the author hasn't made it clear if a number is a volume or an issue number, how is the copy editor supposed to decide? So we need a system, a "language", whereby an author can convey the necessary info in a clear manner to the editor -- a reference format. 2) Programs like bib were written to free the author from having to keep track of every tittle and jot of reference formats, plus reducing the amount of time (and thus money) spent on copy editing. Let the dumb machine do the mechanical work like placing semicolons and converting to boldface. If one user at Roy's site is submitting to this journal, presumably other users will, too, over time. It makes more sense (and saves more time) to write a new reference format in the appropriate style for bib than to a) have to modify some "close" format each time, or b) argue with someone about why a journal wants things just so. There are different reference formats for different purposes, just as there are different programming languages for different purposes. Flaming against variety, especially when there are translator tools that permit that variety, is pointless. Flaming to the net, which has no control over what formats journals choose, is even more pointless. -- Chris Jarocha-Ernst UUCP: {ames, cbosgd, harvard, moss, seismo}!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!cje ARPA: JAROCHAERNST@ZODIAC.RUTGERS.EDU
murphy@phri.UUCP (Ellen Murphy) (07/23/87)
In article <2808@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) asks for help with an unusual bib format, and also complains: >> I'm pissed! I mean, *Jeeze*, why does every single goddamn >> publisher have to go invent a new and incompatible format for references? In <489@elbereth.rutgers.edu> cje (Chris Jarocha-Ernst) replies: >One might make a similar argument against researchers "wasting" their time >writing an article with correct grammar. After all, an editor can always >correct it, right? Correct grammer is extremely important in conveying information to the reader. The placement of punctuation in the reference list, or the slightly different ways that journals can find to alphabetize the same list, conveys no information whatsoever. Unfortunately, journals pay far less attention to grammar than to the piddly details of citations. >Most journals in a field follow a reference format agreed to by a >professional association in that field, not one determined by the whim >of an editor or publisher. The association has chosen or developed >that reference format because they feel it's the one that makes the >references easiest for their readers to understand (and therefore use, Not at all. In my field (molecular biology) there are about 40 journals that I ought to read, and it is rare to find two that format the references the same way (the only exceptions are the journals published by the American Society for Microbiology, one of the many professional associations in the field). The publisher, not the professional associations, decide on these details, and they clearly do not have their readers' best interests in mind. If they did, all citations would include titles and trailing page numbers and would be listed in alphabetical (not citation) order. The journals that omit titles do so to save space (read: money). I also know of one case in which the "whim of the editor" decided the citation format (Academic Press's journal "Plasmid")--and note that other Academic Press journals are differently formatted. > Programs like bib were written to free the author from having to keep >track of every tittle and jot of reference formats, plus reducing the >amount of time (and thus money) spent on copy editing. Let the dumb >machine do the mechanical work like placing semicolons and converting >to boldface. I agree, and bib is great in that it lets me delay the formatting decision as long as I want, or reformat when a paper is rejected and has to go elsewhere--not that that ever happens :-). So why do the copy editors waste their time adding printers marks to my manuscripts which are already correctly formatted with respect to boldface and italics? >If one user at Roy's site is submitting to this journal, presumably other >users will, too, over time. Just for the record, I'm that user, and the paper is for an obscure symposium volume that nobody here is ever likely to publish in again. >There are different reference formats for different purposes, just as there >are different programming languages for different purposes. Changing the placement of commas, semicolons and bold vs. italic doesn't serve any useful purpose in citation lists, in spite of your concern that somebody might mistake a volume for a page number. These things do make a difference in chemical formulas, genetic nomenclature and programming languages, and the professional societies have rightly spent their time developing standards, to which all the journals adhere. I only wish that somebody would do the same for citation formats. Ellen Murphy Public Health Research Institute
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/04/87)
> ... So why do the copy > editors waste their time adding printers marks to my manuscripts which > are already correctly formatted with respect to boldface and italics? Probably because their typesetting people are *not* used to working from multi-font documents, and the copy editors are (justifiably) worried that this will introduce errors. This is a real and legitimate concern. -- Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry