Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!cje From: cje@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Chris Jarocha-Ernst (Meteora's chess partner)) Newsgroups: comp.text Subject: Re: Need help with weirdo format for bib Message-ID: <489@elbereth.rutgers.edu> Date: Wed, 22-Jul-87 10:23:03 EDT Article-I.D.: elbereth.489 Posted: Wed Jul 22 10:23:03 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 24-Jul-87 04:14:42 EDT References: <2808@phri.UUCP> Organization: Anton Phibes School of Medicine Lines: 62 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