Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Referencing Madness
There are a lot of things about editing that aren't exciting or interesting, but such is the nature of a job that preserves the written word. Right on the other hand, there is very little about it that is extraordinarily maddening. Sure, copyediting can be irritating, but it can also be hilariously amusing if you're the kind of person that choked back laughter in the middle of your SATs over dangling participles. Which I am. In fact, when I taught, I regularly called friends to read them the gems produced by my students, my favorite one being, "The English were at war and the French were revolting."
Think about it.
Haphazard authors, late reviewers, non-compliant assistant editors...all these can be overlooked most days. But there is one nemesis that I hate above all others, whether I am writing or editing:
REFERENCES
My sworn blood enemy. If references were a person, I would demand it find its second, choose a weapon, and give me satisfaction.
The problem with references is, they are like algebra problems with calculus answers: the example in the book/instructions is rarely as complicated as the reality. And thanks to The Internets, which is otherwise my friend, references continue to get more complicated and no style manual seems to be able to keep up, particularly in the medical field.
Unfortunately, the medical field is my primary line of interest. It seems as though an undercurrent of desperation to hold on to "real" sources leads to a the neglect of creating a proper form for New References. I can understand the frustration and desire to do so, but the truth is, the future is here. I might not need such examples for a bona fide medical article, but my boss is an Editor in Chief whose current interest lies in Web 2.0's effect on the medical field. I am tasked with formatting the references, and each time feel that I am simply without a net. Who knows if they are truly correct?
My current project includes referencing the following:
4 journal articles
1 book
Wikipedia
2 online academic libraries
O'Reilly's blog
2 online serials
An online learning program
A PDF fact sheet
There is one example for this particular journal's use of online sources, and it refers to a paper journal that is also cited online. Wouldn't we all be so lucky.
Of course the theory behind references is logical--not only does it ensure the source is genuine but the citation makes it findable to future scholars. It's simple enough, but when every journal has its own charming way of presenting said reference and proceeds to hit writers over the head with every little colon and semicolon, one has to wonder if such an exercise is truly helpful or a way of weeding out authors that evolved past the anal-fixation phase.
This is always what I fear. And so, I fixate, pleading to Professor Google to give me an answer. But I am denied.
As much as I love the clever little college writing workshop fact sheets that dot the Web, they are not even close to American Medical Association style. Furthermore, most of the true authorities on style insist on keeping their wishes offline and in hardback books, which is counterintuitive to today's usage, not to mention counterproductive as new publishing formats emerge constantly. I mean, do you want me to use your style or not?
Instead I find myself devising a formula based on tons of examples, not unlike creating a new recipe, spending several days on reference sheets but never knowing if the final product is sufficient.
Seriously, references should be stopped.
Think about it.
Haphazard authors, late reviewers, non-compliant assistant editors...all these can be overlooked most days. But there is one nemesis that I hate above all others, whether I am writing or editing:
REFERENCES
My sworn blood enemy. If references were a person, I would demand it find its second, choose a weapon, and give me satisfaction.
The problem with references is, they are like algebra problems with calculus answers: the example in the book/instructions is rarely as complicated as the reality. And thanks to The Internets, which is otherwise my friend, references continue to get more complicated and no style manual seems to be able to keep up, particularly in the medical field.
Unfortunately, the medical field is my primary line of interest. It seems as though an undercurrent of desperation to hold on to "real" sources leads to a the neglect of creating a proper form for New References. I can understand the frustration and desire to do so, but the truth is, the future is here. I might not need such examples for a bona fide medical article, but my boss is an Editor in Chief whose current interest lies in Web 2.0's effect on the medical field. I am tasked with formatting the references, and each time feel that I am simply without a net. Who knows if they are truly correct?
My current project includes referencing the following:
4 journal articles
1 book
Wikipedia
2 online academic libraries
O'Reilly's blog
2 online serials
An online learning program
A PDF fact sheet
There is one example for this particular journal's use of online sources, and it refers to a paper journal that is also cited online. Wouldn't we all be so lucky.
Of course the theory behind references is logical--not only does it ensure the source is genuine but the citation makes it findable to future scholars. It's simple enough, but when every journal has its own charming way of presenting said reference and proceeds to hit writers over the head with every little colon and semicolon, one has to wonder if such an exercise is truly helpful or a way of weeding out authors that evolved past the anal-fixation phase.
This is always what I fear. And so, I fixate, pleading to Professor Google to give me an answer. But I am denied.
As much as I love the clever little college writing workshop fact sheets that dot the Web, they are not even close to American Medical Association style. Furthermore, most of the true authorities on style insist on keeping their wishes offline and in hardback books, which is counterintuitive to today's usage, not to mention counterproductive as new publishing formats emerge constantly. I mean, do you want me to use your style or not?
Instead I find myself devising a formula based on tons of examples, not unlike creating a new recipe, spending several days on reference sheets but never knowing if the final product is sufficient.
Seriously, references should be stopped.
Labels: editing
Comments:
Post a Comment
