165–176.Īs you can see, the "Conference name" field is used in its totality in all caps, while the "Proceedings title" is abbreviated (Proceedings.), since it is just a repetition of the "Conference name" field, but with the word "Proceedings" at the beginning.Īnother example. In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PRINCIPLES OF KNOWLEDGE A Spatial Logic Based on Regions and Connection. When we cite conference papers, they are to be formatted like this: I use a very infamous reference style from Brazil called ABNT. Maybe I can add a little information as to why my question came to be. Is there one that I'm not aware of that goes into these nuances? Especially with such opaque types, having a user guide to how to add items would be useful. Returning to the original question, I'd also like to know, if I am to insert a "Conference title", whether it should be the name of the conference (like "Science Conference") or the specific event for that year (like "10th Meeting of the Science Conference 2018"). But I've been confused by these categories for a long time, and it seems others are too. Sorry for this somewhat off-topic ramble. I don't know how many styles like that exist, but regardless it leaves the issues above open. The only way this makes sense is if "Conference paper" is a single type of item that is in some styles treated separately from a book chapter, but never like a journal article. Or, if not, then you'd need to format your Zotero entries such that it would not be repetitive, thus breaking the styles that only use one of the fields (by not having full information). A clever workaround would be to check if there is an ISSN and in that case treat the "Conference name" variable as if it's a journal title and format the whole thing like an article, but there's no "ISSN" variable, just ISBN.Īnd then for any citation style that does use both the "Conference name" and "Proceedings title" values in the same bibliographic entry, that would be repetitive. It's still unclear to me, though, why the "Conference name" field exists, since it doesn't address any of that. Now, there are also some informally published proceedings that don't quite seem to meet the rigor of being a "published book", so I'll catalog those as conference proceedings, but the choice really ends up being arbitrary, and the citation looks about the same (in many styles anyway). Although that distinction might be nice to have available on a by-style basis (whether they want the first type treated like journals or not), it isn't clear to me how having the separate conference proceedings type helps with that. Otherwise (or in general if you wish), cite like a chapter in an edited volume. If they have ISSNs and repeat each year, cite like journals. Having conference proceedings as a special item seems somewhat bizarre to me.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |