Do we cite authors or papers when using author/year citations?
Numbered citations
In my field, we usually use only numbered citations, e.g.
As shown in [1], the sky is blue.
This means that we obviously refer to a certain the paper (which can be found under [1] in the reference list). Saying something like
As shown by [1], the sky is blue.
doesn't make too much sense, whereas
As shown by Tyndall [1], the sky is blue.
works.
Author / year citations
Do we again cite papers when using author / year citations? Is "Tyndall, 1869" our name for a certain paper? Or are we refering to the authors?
In particular, which of this is correct:
As shown in Tyndall (1869), the sky is blue.
As shown by Tyndall (1869), the sky is blue.
As shown by Tyndall (Tyndall, 1869), the sky is blue.
As shown in (Tyndall, 1869), the sky is blue.
Sorry if this is a duplicate. This question and the answers don't really help.
citations citation-style
asked Jan 24 at 13:45
cheersmatecheersmate
14615
add a comment |
Numbered citations
In my field, we usually use only numbered citations, e.g.
As shown in [1], the sky is blue.
This means that we obviously refer to a certain the paper (which can be found under [1] in the reference list). Saying something like
As shown by [1], the sky is blue.
doesn't make too much sense, whereas
As shown by Tyndall [1], the sky is blue.
works.
Author / year citations
Do we again cite papers when using author / year citations? Is "Tyndall, 1869" our name for a certain paper? Or are we refering to the authors?
In particular, which of this is correct:
As shown in Tyndall (1869), the sky is blue.
As shown by Tyndall (1869), the sky is blue.
As shown by Tyndall (Tyndall, 1869), the sky is blue.
As shown in (Tyndall, 1869), the sky is blue.
Sorry if this is a duplicate. This question and the answers don't really help.
citations citation-style
asked Jan 24 at 13:45
cheersmatecheersmate
14615
3
I would write "Tindall [1] showed that the sky is blue." or even "The sky is blue [1]." Active voice FTW.
– JeffE
Jan 24 at 13:57
add a comment |
Numbered citations
In my field, we usually use only numbered citations, e.g.
As shown in [1], the sky is blue.
This means that we obviously refer to a certain the paper (which can be found under [1] in the reference list). Saying something like
As shown by [1], the sky is blue.
doesn't make too much sense, whereas
As shown by Tyndall [1], the sky is blue.
works.
Author / year citations
Do we again cite papers when using author / year citations? Is "Tyndall, 1869" our name for a certain paper? Or are we refering to the authors?
In particular, which of this is correct:
As shown in Tyndall (1869), the sky is blue.
As shown by Tyndall (1869), the sky is blue.
As shown by Tyndall (Tyndall, 1869), the sky is blue.
As shown in (Tyndall, 1869), the sky is blue.
Sorry if this is a duplicate. This question and the answers don't really help.
citations citation-style
asked Jan 24 at 13:45
cheersmatecheersmate
14615
Numbered citations
In my field, we usually use only numbered citations, e.g.
As shown in [1], the sky is blue.
This means that we obviously refer to a certain the paper (which can be found under [1] in the reference list). Saying something like
As shown by [1], the sky is blue.
doesn't make too much sense, whereas
As shown by Tyndall [1], the sky is blue.
works.
Author / year citations
Do we again cite papers when using author / year citations? Is "Tyndall, 1869" our name for a certain paper? Or are we refering to the authors?
In particular, which of this is correct:
As shown in Tyndall (1869), the sky is blue.
As shown by Tyndall (1869), the sky is blue.
As shown by Tyndall (Tyndall, 1869), the sky is blue.
As shown in (Tyndall, 1869), the sky is blue.
Sorry if this is a duplicate. This question and the answers don't really help.
citations citation-style
citations citation-style
asked Jan 24 at 13:45
cheersmatecheersmate
14615
asked Jan 24 at 13:45
cheersmatecheersmate
14615
asked Jan 24 at 13:45
cheersmatecheersmate
14615
asked Jan 24 at 13:45
cheersmatecheersmate
14615
asked Jan 24 at 13:45
cheersmatecheersmate
14615
14615
3
I would write "Tindall [1] showed that the sky is blue." or even "The sky is blue [1]." Active voice FTW.
– JeffE
Jan 24 at 13:57
add a comment |
3
I would write "Tindall [1] showed that the sky is blue." or even "The sky is blue [1]." Active voice FTW.
– JeffE
Jan 24 at 13:57
3
3
I would write "Tindall [1] showed that the sky is blue." or even "The sky is blue [1]." Active voice FTW.
– JeffE
Jan 24 at 13:57
I would write "Tindall [1] showed that the sky is blue." or even "The sky is blue [1]." Active voice FTW.
– JeffE
Jan 24 at 13:57
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
In general, the final arbiter of this is the style guide the editor is using for the book, journal or collection. If you have no external editor or style sheet then the choice is yours, but the most common usage for inline citations would be not to repeat the name, while leaving the sentence readable with the parenthetical part left out, i.e.
As shown in Tyndall (1869), the sky is blue.
This is specifically when the name is reused, so it would still be
As shown in another paper (Tyndall, 1869), the sky is blue.
answered Jan 24 at 13:54
origimboorigimbo
90846
In active voice and citing the person rather than the paper: "Tyndall (1869) showed that the sky is blue." or even "The sky is blue (Tyndall 1869)."
– JeffE
Jan 24 at 13:56
So it is a matter of preference (except for #4 which is discouraged)? #3 seems rather redundant to me but I've seen it as example on a journal style guide.
– cheersmate
Jan 24 at 14:03
@cheersmate #3 is uncommon, but if it's what the journal requires, then it's what you do. Their (publishing) house, their rules.
– origimbo
Jan 24 at 14:09
add a comment |
It's obviously context dependent and depends on what you want to emphasize. You can either call attention to the author or the paper. If there is a reason to prefer one to the other do so. For example, if you are tracing a line of work over several studies, perhaps attention on the author as the common thread and the paper as just an instance makes more sense.
"Initial observations by Tyndall [1], established the sky was colored. Later, with more precise gazing at the sky, Guest [2] established it was blue."
Conversely, if you are discussing a raft of papers from different authors supporting a common idea, emphasis on the papers makes more sense.
"Gas colors observation has been reviewed [1-7]."
I would think in many general cases, either choice is fine and it is just an issue of the turn of phrase. After all, you have the paper citation either way. It's just a question of how you like to structure your narrative. And unlikely that one way will be strongly wrong.
answered Jan 24 at 18:16
guestguest
78815
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f123701%2fdo-we-cite-authors-or-papers-when-using-author-year-citations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In general, the final arbiter of this is the style guide the editor is using for the book, journal or collection. If you have no external editor or style sheet then the choice is yours, but the most common usage for inline citations would be not to repeat the name, while leaving the sentence readable with the parenthetical part left out, i.e.
As shown in Tyndall (1869), the sky is blue.
This is specifically when the name is reused, so it would still be
As shown in another paper (Tyndall, 1869), the sky is blue.
answered Jan 24 at 13:54
origimboorigimbo
90846
In active voice and citing the person rather than the paper: "Tyndall (1869) showed that the sky is blue." or even "The sky is blue (Tyndall 1869)."
– JeffE
Jan 24 at 13:56
So it is a matter of preference (except for #4 which is discouraged)? #3 seems rather redundant to me but I've seen it as example on a journal style guide.
– cheersmate
Jan 24 at 14:03
@cheersmate #3 is uncommon, but if it's what the journal requires, then it's what you do. Their (publishing) house, their rules.
– origimbo
Jan 24 at 14:09
add a comment |
In general, the final arbiter of this is the style guide the editor is using for the book, journal or collection. If you have no external editor or style sheet then the choice is yours, but the most common usage for inline citations would be not to repeat the name, while leaving the sentence readable with the parenthetical part left out, i.e.
As shown in Tyndall (1869), the sky is blue.
This is specifically when the name is reused, so it would still be
As shown in another paper (Tyndall, 1869), the sky is blue.
answered Jan 24 at 13:54
origimboorigimbo
90846
In active voice and citing the person rather than the paper: "Tyndall (1869) showed that the sky is blue." or even "The sky is blue (Tyndall 1869)."
– JeffE
Jan 24 at 13:56
So it is a matter of preference (except for #4 which is discouraged)? #3 seems rather redundant to me but I've seen it as example on a journal style guide.
– cheersmate
Jan 24 at 14:03
@cheersmate #3 is uncommon, but if it's what the journal requires, then it's what you do. Their (publishing) house, their rules.
– origimbo
Jan 24 at 14:09
add a comment |
In general, the final arbiter of this is the style guide the editor is using for the book, journal or collection. If you have no external editor or style sheet then the choice is yours, but the most common usage for inline citations would be not to repeat the name, while leaving the sentence readable with the parenthetical part left out, i.e.
As shown in Tyndall (1869), the sky is blue.
This is specifically when the name is reused, so it would still be
As shown in another paper (Tyndall, 1869), the sky is blue.
answered Jan 24 at 13:54
origimboorigimbo
90846
In general, the final arbiter of this is the style guide the editor is using for the book, journal or collection. If you have no external editor or style sheet then the choice is yours, but the most common usage for inline citations would be not to repeat the name, while leaving the sentence readable with the parenthetical part left out, i.e.
As shown in Tyndall (1869), the sky is blue.
This is specifically when the name is reused, so it would still be
As shown in another paper (Tyndall, 1869), the sky is blue.
answered Jan 24 at 13:54
origimboorigimbo
90846
answered Jan 24 at 13:54
origimboorigimbo
90846
answered Jan 24 at 13:54
origimboorigimbo
90846
answered Jan 24 at 13:54
origimboorigimbo
90846
90846
In active voice and citing the person rather than the paper: "Tyndall (1869) showed that the sky is blue." or even "The sky is blue (Tyndall 1869)."
– JeffE
Jan 24 at 13:56
So it is a matter of preference (except for #4 which is discouraged)? #3 seems rather redundant to me but I've seen it as example on a journal style guide.
– cheersmate
Jan 24 at 14:03
@cheersmate #3 is uncommon, but if it's what the journal requires, then it's what you do. Their (publishing) house, their rules.
– origimbo
Jan 24 at 14:09
add a comment |
In active voice and citing the person rather than the paper: "Tyndall (1869) showed that the sky is blue." or even "The sky is blue (Tyndall 1869)."
– JeffE
Jan 24 at 13:56
So it is a matter of preference (except for #4 which is discouraged)? #3 seems rather redundant to me but I've seen it as example on a journal style guide.
– cheersmate
Jan 24 at 14:03
@cheersmate #3 is uncommon, but if it's what the journal requires, then it's what you do. Their (publishing) house, their rules.
– origimbo
Jan 24 at 14:09
In active voice and citing the person rather than the paper: "Tyndall (1869) showed that the sky is blue." or even "The sky is blue (Tyndall 1869)."
– JeffE
Jan 24 at 13:56
In active voice and citing the person rather than the paper: "Tyndall (1869) showed that the sky is blue." or even "The sky is blue (Tyndall 1869)."
– JeffE
Jan 24 at 13:56
So it is a matter of preference (except for #4 which is discouraged)? #3 seems rather redundant to me but I've seen it as example on a journal style guide.
– cheersmate
Jan 24 at 14:03
So it is a matter of preference (except for #4 which is discouraged)? #3 seems rather redundant to me but I've seen it as example on a journal style guide.
– cheersmate
Jan 24 at 14:03
@cheersmate #3 is uncommon, but if it's what the journal requires, then it's what you do. Their (publishing) house, their rules.
– origimbo
Jan 24 at 14:09
@cheersmate #3 is uncommon, but if it's what the journal requires, then it's what you do. Their (publishing) house, their rules.
– origimbo
Jan 24 at 14:09
add a comment |
It's obviously context dependent and depends on what you want to emphasize. You can either call attention to the author or the paper. If there is a reason to prefer one to the other do so. For example, if you are tracing a line of work over several studies, perhaps attention on the author as the common thread and the paper as just an instance makes more sense.
"Initial observations by Tyndall [1], established the sky was colored. Later, with more precise gazing at the sky, Guest [2] established it was blue."
Conversely, if you are discussing a raft of papers from different authors supporting a common idea, emphasis on the papers makes more sense.
"Gas colors observation has been reviewed [1-7]."
I would think in many general cases, either choice is fine and it is just an issue of the turn of phrase. After all, you have the paper citation either way. It's just a question of how you like to structure your narrative. And unlikely that one way will be strongly wrong.
answered Jan 24 at 18:16
guestguest
78815
add a comment |
It's obviously context dependent and depends on what you want to emphasize. You can either call attention to the author or the paper. If there is a reason to prefer one to the other do so. For example, if you are tracing a line of work over several studies, perhaps attention on the author as the common thread and the paper as just an instance makes more sense.
"Initial observations by Tyndall [1], established the sky was colored. Later, with more precise gazing at the sky, Guest [2] established it was blue."
Conversely, if you are discussing a raft of papers from different authors supporting a common idea, emphasis on the papers makes more sense.
"Gas colors observation has been reviewed [1-7]."
I would think in many general cases, either choice is fine and it is just an issue of the turn of phrase. After all, you have the paper citation either way. It's just a question of how you like to structure your narrative. And unlikely that one way will be strongly wrong.
answered Jan 24 at 18:16
guestguest
78815
add a comment |
It's obviously context dependent and depends on what you want to emphasize. You can either call attention to the author or the paper. If there is a reason to prefer one to the other do so. For example, if you are tracing a line of work over several studies, perhaps attention on the author as the common thread and the paper as just an instance makes more sense.
"Initial observations by Tyndall [1], established the sky was colored. Later, with more precise gazing at the sky, Guest [2] established it was blue."
Conversely, if you are discussing a raft of papers from different authors supporting a common idea, emphasis on the papers makes more sense.
"Gas colors observation has been reviewed [1-7]."
I would think in many general cases, either choice is fine and it is just an issue of the turn of phrase. After all, you have the paper citation either way. It's just a question of how you like to structure your narrative. And unlikely that one way will be strongly wrong.
answered Jan 24 at 18:16
guestguest
78815
It's obviously context dependent and depends on what you want to emphasize. You can either call attention to the author or the paper. If there is a reason to prefer one to the other do so. For example, if you are tracing a line of work over several studies, perhaps attention on the author as the common thread and the paper as just an instance makes more sense.
"Initial observations by Tyndall [1], established the sky was colored. Later, with more precise gazing at the sky, Guest [2] established it was blue."
Conversely, if you are discussing a raft of papers from different authors supporting a common idea, emphasis on the papers makes more sense.
"Gas colors observation has been reviewed [1-7]."
I would think in many general cases, either choice is fine and it is just an issue of the turn of phrase. After all, you have the paper citation either way. It's just a question of how you like to structure your narrative. And unlikely that one way will be strongly wrong.
answered Jan 24 at 18:16
guestguest
78815
answered Jan 24 at 18:16
guestguest
78815
answered Jan 24 at 18:16
guestguest
78815
answered Jan 24 at 18:16
guestguest
78815
78815
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f123701%2fdo-we-cite-authors-or-papers-when-using-author-year-citations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
I would write "Tindall [1] showed that the sky is blue." or even "The sky is blue [1]." Active voice FTW.
– JeffE
Jan 24 at 13:57