A citation style with no in-text indicators?
December 28, 2011 1:03 PM Subscribe
What is the citation style with no indicators in the text, but notes at the end keyed to page numbers? Editors, what do you think of it? And does anyone have Zotero or Mendeley tricks for implementing it in Libreoffice?
There are no note numbers or symbols, superscripted or otherwise. If the reader sees a quotation, they can turn to the notes section and find, organized by chapter and page number, the sources used.
This is most common, I think, in serious non-fiction. The last book I read that used this was Lewis Hyde's Common as Air (at that Amazon link you can "look inside" if you want, search "notes" and go to one of the last hits to see how they're laid out there).
I can't seem to search out any listing of citation styles that describes this approach. I'm preparing a manuscript that would work very well with this method--not a lot of notes, and those not important to the general reader, but with a need for citation nonetheless.
What is this style called?
Should I use it? (this is not about whether it's "ok" with my editor/house, but what you think of it in a general sense)
How should I get Libreoffice and Zotero or Mendeley to help me do it?
There are no note numbers or symbols, superscripted or otherwise. If the reader sees a quotation, they can turn to the notes section and find, organized by chapter and page number, the sources used.
This is most common, I think, in serious non-fiction. The last book I read that used this was Lewis Hyde's Common as Air (at that Amazon link you can "look inside" if you want, search "notes" and go to one of the last hits to see how they're laid out there).
I can't seem to search out any listing of citation styles that describes this approach. I'm preparing a manuscript that would work very well with this method--not a lot of notes, and those not important to the general reader, but with a need for citation nonetheless.
What is this style called?
Should I use it? (this is not about whether it's "ok" with my editor/house, but what you think of it in a general sense)
How should I get Libreoffice and Zotero or Mendeley to help me do it?
I believe Chicago Manual of Style allows either footnotes or endnotes--endnotes are what those are called. I agree with synecdoche that they're annoying, as I am rather obsessive about checking out what those little superscript numbers in text refer to and it's a whole lot more obnoxious to have to flip to the back of the book than to look at the bottom of the page.
posted by miss patrish at 1:24 PM on December 28, 2011
posted by miss patrish at 1:24 PM on December 28, 2011
I'll suggest you learn and use LaTeX for this. It's beyond excellent.
posted by Strass at 1:25 PM on December 28, 2011
posted by Strass at 1:25 PM on December 28, 2011
Response by poster: Synecdoche, would you still find it annoying if the references were contextually clear in the text? Like, "as the reviewer for the New York Times put it '[quote blah blah]'". then the reader only looks to the back if they want the details to look it up themselves?
miss patrish, I'm specifically talking about, basically, endnotes with NO little numbers.
Strass, I should have had a betting pool for how long it would take for someone to suggest LaTeX. Am I just a wimp for being intimidated by it?
posted by Mngo at 1:32 PM on December 28, 2011
miss patrish, I'm specifically talking about, basically, endnotes with NO little numbers.
Strass, I should have had a betting pool for how long it would take for someone to suggest LaTeX. Am I just a wimp for being intimidated by it?
posted by Mngo at 1:32 PM on December 28, 2011
Wait, are you talking about a bibliography? or index? Yeah, that's different altogether, as an endnote points to a specific quote/paraphrase/summary at a particular place in the text, so that a source can end up being repeated multiple times. I'm not sure what stylesheet that whole index thingy is, either--I work mostly with MLA, APA and only occasionally Chicago. There are scads of stylesheets out there. What/who are you preparing this manuscript for? What sort of manuscript is it?
posted by miss patrish at 1:44 PM on December 28, 2011
posted by miss patrish at 1:44 PM on December 28, 2011
This sounds like a truly awful system, so I'm nthing don't use it. Stick with either Vancouver (numerical) or Harvard (author-date). I highly recommend buying a copy of the CMoS.
posted by alby at 1:46 PM on December 28, 2011
posted by alby at 1:46 PM on December 28, 2011
I'm an editor, and I don't know what the style is called, but I can tell you that as a reader I despise it. If an author is including references, I want to know it as I read, and I want to know if they are citations only (so I don't have to follow them as I read) or discursive (so I can follow them or not as I choose).
posted by scody at 1:53 PM on December 28, 2011
posted by scody at 1:53 PM on December 28, 2011
I'm in favor of it, bucking this trend. If you want a smooth reading flow, the superscript numbers marking footnotes and endnotes are annoying. As long as you know there are endnotes, you can review them when you like.
This doesn't answer the question, but neither has anyone else so far. I would imagine that there is a code that marks the location so that the program can plug the proper page number into it, but which does not produce a superscript number. I would call it a "blank reference" if I were naming it.
posted by yclipse at 2:05 PM on December 28, 2011
This doesn't answer the question, but neither has anyone else so far. I would imagine that there is a code that marks the location so that the program can plug the proper page number into it, but which does not produce a superscript number. I would call it a "blank reference" if I were naming it.
posted by yclipse at 2:05 PM on December 28, 2011
Best answer: I agree to some extent with synecdoche and scody that this style of referencing can be annoying, but Hyde's Common as Air avoids some of the pitfalls by using the page number each time, and he's not using it just for referencing citations but also for glossing concepts in the way that 'normal' footnotes would.
The principal advantage of this style (and I don't know what it's called, either) is that you don't pepper your main text with superscript footnote numbers; the main disadvantage is that rather than simply numbering the endnotes you have instead to reproduce enough of the text to provide a 'hook' -- the number of citations may therefore negatively affect any publisher-imposed word-limits.
An alternative is to use a 'bibliographic(al) notes' section (cf. Owen Gingerich, The Book Nobody Read), which allows you to be discursive, but which also means you have to find variant ways of saying 'the quotation about "blah, blah" is from . . .' in order to reference your citations.
A visually more attractive alternative is to use provide sources in the margins of your text, in the way favoured by Jaroslav Pelikan
and Edward Tufte. This is very difficult to achieve with ordinary word-processing software, but there are Latex templates that make it relatively easy, so if you are providing your own typesetting that would be the way to go.
posted by davemack at 2:06 PM on December 28, 2011 [1 favorite]
The principal advantage of this style (and I don't know what it's called, either) is that you don't pepper your main text with superscript footnote numbers; the main disadvantage is that rather than simply numbering the endnotes you have instead to reproduce enough of the text to provide a 'hook' -- the number of citations may therefore negatively affect any publisher-imposed word-limits.
An alternative is to use a 'bibliographic(al) notes' section (cf. Owen Gingerich, The Book Nobody Read), which allows you to be discursive, but which also means you have to find variant ways of saying 'the quotation about "blah, blah" is from . . .' in order to reference your citations.
A visually more attractive alternative is to use provide sources in the margins of your text, in the way favoured by Jaroslav Pelikan
and Edward Tufte. This is very difficult to achieve with ordinary word-processing software, but there are Latex templates that make it relatively easy, so if you are providing your own typesetting that would be the way to go.
posted by davemack at 2:06 PM on December 28, 2011 [1 favorite]
I don't know what this style is called, but I feel the need to defend it. I don't love jumping back and forth between citations and the main text when I read, but I do want to know about sources. This style allows me to read a bunch of pages and then skim the notes section for those pages; instead of seeing a bunch of numbers that I don't associate with anything, I see snippets of quotes that I remember from my reading and it helps orient me when thinking about the sources.
posted by yarrow at 2:07 PM on December 28, 2011
posted by yarrow at 2:07 PM on December 28, 2011
I gotta agree with the people who despise this style. It's truly awful for a reader. I don't understand why any author would want to make it difficult for a reader to read their notes. It's easy enough for a reader to simply ignore the note reference numbers in the text if they don't want to be bothered, but having to figure out which notes apply to where in the text is annoying for the readers who care.
If an author is including references, I want to know it as I read, and I want to know if they are citations only (so I don't have to follow them as I read) or discursive (so I can follow them or not as I choose).
This is why I prefer footnotes and generally dislike endnotes. I hate it when I flip to the back of a book to check out a note and it's just a citation. With footnotes, I can glance down and back up with minimal interruption to the flow of reading. I know a lot of unsophisticated readers may be intimidated when they see footnotes in a text, but they're a lot more user-friendly, IMO.
posted by roosterboy at 2:07 PM on December 28, 2011
If an author is including references, I want to know it as I read, and I want to know if they are citations only (so I don't have to follow them as I read) or discursive (so I can follow them or not as I choose).
This is why I prefer footnotes and generally dislike endnotes. I hate it when I flip to the back of a book to check out a note and it's just a citation. With footnotes, I can glance down and back up with minimal interruption to the flow of reading. I know a lot of unsophisticated readers may be intimidated when they see footnotes in a text, but they're a lot more user-friendly, IMO.
posted by roosterboy at 2:07 PM on December 28, 2011
Best answer: When I was an editor, we called them "blind endnotes."
posted by ocherdraco at 2:08 PM on December 28, 2011
posted by ocherdraco at 2:08 PM on December 28, 2011
You aren't a wimp for being intimidated. It has a high learning curve but IMO it's extremely worth it. I learned it for writing scientific reports this year and I will never look back. Not only does it make citations a breeze, but it helps me organize myself throughout the writing process and forces me to really think about what and why I am writing.
posted by Strass at 2:13 PM on December 28, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Strass at 2:13 PM on December 28, 2011 [1 favorite]
Best answer: A little tooling around reveals that, in OpenOffice, you can select special characters as the endnote marker. Choose a period and you have a nice unobtrusive superscripted dot as your marker, with two-way links if you remain within the OpenOffice environment. Conversion to PDF (at least on my system) provides a one-way link, and the back button would do the return.
posted by yclipse at 2:16 PM on December 28, 2011
posted by yclipse at 2:16 PM on December 28, 2011
> I'm an editor, and I don't know what the style is called, but I can tell you that as a reader I despise it.
Same here. Apparently there are people who find footnote numbers annoying, and I can see why they would like this style, but I hate it—I'm continually checking the back to see if there's a reference and getting annoyed if there isn't.
posted by languagehat at 2:56 PM on December 28, 2011
Same here. Apparently there are people who find footnote numbers annoying, and I can see why they would like this style, but I hate it—I'm continually checking the back to see if there's a reference and getting annoyed if there isn't.
posted by languagehat at 2:56 PM on December 28, 2011
Should I use it?
A central problem beyond those previously mentioned with this (IMO very unpleasant citation style) is that it prevents you from easily knowing while reading what has a citation at all. When I've seen versions of this used (sometimes with a mix of a small number of things cited directly and extra annotated citations at the end) it seems that one function was to disguise an inappropriate lack or skewing of citations, while attempting to seem authoritative by having some citations. My feeling is that if you want to cite things at all, do it properly, in a way that a reader can actually use.
At a practical level, if this is something you expect might be reviewed by topical experts, this would be a good way to piss them off.
posted by advil at 8:02 PM on December 28, 2011
A central problem beyond those previously mentioned with this (IMO very unpleasant citation style) is that it prevents you from easily knowing while reading what has a citation at all. When I've seen versions of this used (sometimes with a mix of a small number of things cited directly and extra annotated citations at the end) it seems that one function was to disguise an inappropriate lack or skewing of citations, while attempting to seem authoritative by having some citations. My feeling is that if you want to cite things at all, do it properly, in a way that a reader can actually use.
At a practical level, if this is something you expect might be reviewed by topical experts, this would be a good way to piss them off.
posted by advil at 8:02 PM on December 28, 2011
Choosing a citation style is always dependent on where you will be publishing the material. All academic journals will specify what citation style they want. For books, it's a process of negotiation between the author and the publisher, but different fields have different standards and requirements. Upthread, someone suggested using either Vancouver or Author-Date - but while Vancouver is commonly required in the medical sciences and variations of Author-Date are used in the social sciences, both systems are inappropriate and inadequate for historical citation, which often must provide citations to unpublished material - most historians use footnotes or endnotes (which readers and authors both dislike, but publishers sometimes insist on).
As someone who has done citations in Vancouver, APA Author-date, MLA and Chicago-style footnotes (for research in health, psychology, literature and history, respetively - I worked as clerical and library support), I will assert once again that there is no best citation method, but that different citation methods all have strengths and weaknesses, and what is best for you depends on the nature of the sources, the purpose and use of the citations, the intended audience and genre (eg textbooks often exclude citations, books like edited literature or wide-market non-fiction often have very subtle citations, like blind endnotes).
That said, I would only use blind endnotes if you don't mind if no one ever looks at them. They are fine for source citations and simple explanatory notes; they are useless for notes expanding significantly on the text.
posted by jb at 11:14 PM on December 28, 2011
As someone who has done citations in Vancouver, APA Author-date, MLA and Chicago-style footnotes (for research in health, psychology, literature and history, respetively - I worked as clerical and library support), I will assert once again that there is no best citation method, but that different citation methods all have strengths and weaknesses, and what is best for you depends on the nature of the sources, the purpose and use of the citations, the intended audience and genre (eg textbooks often exclude citations, books like edited literature or wide-market non-fiction often have very subtle citations, like blind endnotes).
That said, I would only use blind endnotes if you don't mind if no one ever looks at them. They are fine for source citations and simple explanatory notes; they are useless for notes expanding significantly on the text.
posted by jb at 11:14 PM on December 28, 2011
Response by poster: Wow, amazing responses, thanks all.
Ocherdraco, that's definitely the term I was looking for, and I'd be surprised at forgetting it, but a Google search for "blind endnotes" actually returns only one page of hits, only two of which are actually this concept (an author's discussion of his decision to not use these is here).
Yclipse that's a good technical idea; for sharing the manuscript around I think I can also just insert reference marks for each absolutely necessary reference (I'm also probably find using just regular endnotes for now and changing to blind endnotes if we want when it's going into production).
Many thanks too for the subjective responses to the style. My editor has been pushing me toward a popular, essayistic voice where we really wouldn't "mind if no one ever looks at them" in jb's words. I mostly think the Hyde example works this way, but all the negative reactions are valuable feedback and a cautionary tale--who wants to piss readers off with format instead of content?
Clearly I should have some more conversation about this with my editor, and now I have the term for it! I guess I'll have to go back to re-writing now (or procrastinate with LaTeX!).
posted by Mngo at 7:06 AM on December 29, 2011
Ocherdraco, that's definitely the term I was looking for, and I'd be surprised at forgetting it, but a Google search for "blind endnotes" actually returns only one page of hits, only two of which are actually this concept (an author's discussion of his decision to not use these is here).
Yclipse that's a good technical idea; for sharing the manuscript around I think I can also just insert reference marks for each absolutely necessary reference (I'm also probably find using just regular endnotes for now and changing to blind endnotes if we want when it's going into production).
Many thanks too for the subjective responses to the style. My editor has been pushing me toward a popular, essayistic voice where we really wouldn't "mind if no one ever looks at them" in jb's words. I mostly think the Hyde example works this way, but all the negative reactions are valuable feedback and a cautionary tale--who wants to piss readers off with format instead of content?
Clearly I should have some more conversation about this with my editor, and now I have the term for it! I guess I'll have to go back to re-writing now (or procrastinate with LaTeX!).
posted by Mngo at 7:06 AM on December 29, 2011
As a reader, I like them as long as I know that they are there. They are like little Easter eggs. Anytime I want, I can go check the back of the book to see if there is some additional information, but no one is shoving them in my face, or making me feel un-studious and glib for not flipping the pages every time a little tiny number pops up.
But if I find them after I've read the whole book they just piss me off.
PS: Those little number like "16" that make me go flipping to the back of the book and looking them up only to see them say "ibid, 498-499"? I hate those little fuckers.
posted by SLC Mom at 8:16 AM on December 29, 2011
But if I find them after I've read the whole book they just piss me off.
PS: Those little number like "16" that make me go flipping to the back of the book and looking them up only to see them say "ibid, 498-499"? I hate those little fuckers.
posted by SLC Mom at 8:16 AM on December 29, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by synecdoche at 1:22 PM on December 28, 2011