tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2350296532020480767.post6031718848030226849..comments2017-07-26T17:09:32.568-04:00Comments on The Canadian Field-Naturalist Blog: Reference formats: little method, lots of madnessThe Canadian Field-Naturalisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00890033602358303899noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2350296532020480767.post-53279598887840912982013-07-16T23:42:59.474-04:002013-07-16T23:42:59.474-04:00Full agreement - a ref + DOI in literature cited i...Full agreement - a ref + DOI in literature cited is the way to go. Here's hoping you get your DOIs soon and can retroactively apply them to back-issues.David Shorthousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07902186433894266822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2350296532020480767.post-81416963547847859862013-07-16T15:45:18.868-04:002013-07-16T15:45:18.868-04:00Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) are certainly us...Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) are certainly useful, and I'd expect any "universal" reference format to include them. But I would not want the DOI to come at the expense of other elements of the reference, even if those DOIs would be resolved to include full references + DOIs upon publication. Referees need to see full references, not just DOIs. A quick glimpse at a reference will give a referee lots of info without having to follow a DOI link to the referenced article. Also, authors will make mistakes in the DOIs they include in references. If there is nothing but a DOI then there is no alternative way for the referee, editor, or publisher to find out the reference without going back to the author. I'd rather have the redundancy of a reference + DOI for easy visualization of the reference for readers (the reference) and linkage for the reasons you provide (the DOI).<br /><br />We are guilty of being too late into the game of DOIs. We will sign up - it's on our lengthy "to do" list.<br /><br />Also keep in mind that people are slow to embrace major change in conventions. A Science News piece from 2002 described a geophysics journal that changed its reference format to include DOIs at the expense of page numbers, but reverted to its normal format in response to frustration and confusion by authors.<br /><br />REFERENCE:<br />Renner, R. 2002. Online pioneer winds up lost in cyberspace. Science 297:1468-1469.The Canadian Field-Naturalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00890033602358303899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2350296532020480767.post-32702429531610691742013-07-16T14:31:48.153-04:002013-07-16T14:31:48.153-04:00I haven't seen any mention of DOIs. Outside th...I haven't seen any mention of DOIs. Outside the confines of print paper, the reference format is rendered largely inconsequential for modern literature. There really should be no reason for authors to submit anything BUT a DOI in a lit. cited section of a submission then leave it up to the Editorial team to auto-churn these into whatever format the journal desires. At the very least, the reference format in the final product should also include resolver + DOI for each reference (eg http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20718 for one of your cited papers above). It is unacceptable in this day and age not to have these both for the authors being cited (click-through metrics are tallied) and for readers. In their absence, readers have to use various hacks to find articles being cited (eg. Google Chrome extensions like http://bit.ly/RgZQiA)David Shorthousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07902186433894266822noreply@blogger.com