Skip to main content
Tweeted twitter.com/StackAcademia/status/1142084881457041409
deleted 5 characters in body
Source Link
matousc
  • 833
  • 1
  • 6
  • 10

I kind of struggle with my students. I always told them to put the reference number (identification) close to the cited object - to make really clear what is the cited object. For example:

  • The theorem:

    Theorem A [1] is great ...

  • The study:

    In the study [1] it is possible to see that ...

  • The statement:

    It was proven that usage of ... leads to problems [1].

However, my students keep doing something like this:

  • Citation is related to the previous sentence! (probably):

    ... and it was proven. [1] The general idea ...

  • As above, but with extra period:

    ... and it was proven. [1]. The general idea ... *- *

  • After the entire paragraph:

    ... and it was proven. [1]

They are arguing that this referencing is correct according to the ISO norm/suggestions. They keep doing that even though I told them to not do so. And they generally try to comply with my guidelines. This is a real exception. It seems this referencing idea is deeply rooted in their brains.

My questions:

  • Is their way of referencing legal? If yes, where are informations how to read this fuzzy notation? And why it does not appear in top journals?
  • How to tell them that this referencing is really unclear in a way that they will understand.

Note: The students I am struggling with are from all continents/countries, pursuing a university degree in electrical/software/mechanical engineering. I would say they are mostly 22±2 years old.

I kind of struggle with my students. I always told them to put the reference number (identification) close to the cited object - to make really clear what is the cited object. For example:

  • The theorem:

    Theorem A [1] is great ...

  • The study:

    In the study [1] it is possible to see that ...

  • The statement:

    It was proven that usage of ... leads to problems [1].

However, my students keep doing something like this:

  • Citation is related to the previous sentence! (probably):

    ... and it was proven. [1] The general idea ...

  • As above, but with extra period:

    ... and it was proven. [1]. The general idea ... *- *

  • After the entire paragraph:

    ... and it was proven. [1]

They are arguing that this referencing is correct according to the ISO norm/suggestions. They keep doing that even though I told them to not do so. And they generally try to comply with my guidelines. This is a real exception. It seems this referencing idea is deeply rooted in their brains.

My questions:

  • Is their way of referencing legal? If yes, where are informations how to read this fuzzy notation? And why it does not appear in top journals?
  • How to tell them that this referencing is really unclear in a way that they will understand.

Note: The students I am struggling with are from all continents/countries, pursuing a university degree in electrical/software/mechanical engineering. I would say they are mostly 22±2 years old.

I kind of struggle with my students. I always told them to put the reference number (identification) close to the cited object - to make really clear what is the cited object. For example:

  • The theorem:

    Theorem A [1] is great ...

  • The study:

    In the study [1] it is possible to see that ...

  • The statement:

    It was proven that usage of ... leads to problems [1].

However, my students keep doing something like this:

  • Citation is related to the previous sentence! (probably):

    ... and it was proven. [1] The general idea ...

  • As above, but with extra period:

    ... and it was proven. [1]. The general idea ...

  • After the entire paragraph:

    ... and it was proven. [1]

They are arguing that this referencing is correct according to the ISO norm/suggestions. They keep doing that even though I told them to not do so. And they generally try to comply with my guidelines. This is a real exception. It seems this referencing idea is deeply rooted in their brains.

My questions:

  • Is their way of referencing legal? If yes, where are informations how to read this fuzzy notation? And why it does not appear in top journals?
  • How to tell them that this referencing is really unclear in a way that they will understand.

Note: The students I am struggling with are from all continents/countries, pursuing a university degree in electrical/software/mechanical engineering. I would say they are mostly 22±2 years old.

Formatting
Source Link
Wrzlprmft
  • 65k
  • 18
  • 199
  • 306

Correct way to put reference number in text Placement of numerical references (“[1]”)

I kind of struggle with my students. I always told them to put the reference number (identification) close to the cited object - to make really clear what is the cited object. For example:

  • The theorem A [1] is great ... - theorem A:

    Theorem A [1] is great ...

  • In theThe study [1] it is possible to see that ... - the study:

    In the study [1] it is possible to see that ...

  • It was proven that usage of ... leads to problems [1]. - the statementThe statement:

    It was proven that usage of ... leads to problems [1].

However, my students keep doing something like this:

  • ... and it was proven. [1] The general idea ... Citation is related to the previous sentence! - citation is related to the previous sentence! (probably)(probably):

    ... and it was proven. [1] The general idea ...

  • ... and it was proven. [1]. The general idea ... - the same but with extra dot As above, but with extra period:

    ... and it was proven. [1]. The general idea ... *- *

  • ... and it was proven. [1] - citation after paragraph - probably related to the whole paragraph?! After the entire paragraph:

    ... and it was proven. [1]

They are arguing that this referencing is correct according to the ISO norm/suggestions. They keep doing that even though I told them to not do so. And they generally try to comply with my guidelines. This is a real exception. It seems this referencing idea is deeply rooted in their brains.

My questions:

  • Is their way of referencing legal? If yes, where are informations how to read this fuzzy notation? And why it does not appear in top journals?
  • How to tell them that this referencing is really unclear in a way that they will understand.

Note: StudentsThe students I am struggling with are from all continents/countries, pursuing a university degree in electrical/software/mechanical engineering. I would say they are mostly 22+-222±2 years old.

Correct way to put reference number in text

I kind of struggle with my students. I always told them to put the reference number (identification) close to the cited object - to make really clear what is the cited object. For example:

  • The theorem A [1] is great ... - theorem A
  • In the study [1] it is possible to see that ... - the study
  • It was proven that usage of ... leads to problems [1]. - the statement

However, my students keep doing something like this:

  • ... and it was proven. [1] The general idea ... - citation is related to the previous sentence! (probably)
  • ... and it was proven. [1]. The general idea ... - the same but with extra dot
  • ... and it was proven. [1] - citation after paragraph - probably related to the whole paragraph?!

They are arguing that this referencing is correct according to the ISO norm/suggestions. They keep doing that even though I told them to not do so. And they generally try to comply with my guidelines. This is a real exception. It seems this referencing idea is deeply rooted in their brains.

My questions:

  • Is their way of referencing legal? If yes, where are informations how to read this fuzzy notation? And why it does not appear in top journals?
  • How to tell them that this referencing is really unclear in a way that they will understand.

Note: Students I am struggling with are from all continents/countries, pursuing a university degree in electrical/software/mechanical engineering. I would say they are mostly 22+-2 years old.

Placement of numerical references (“[1]”)

I kind of struggle with my students. I always told them to put the reference number (identification) close to the cited object - to make really clear what is the cited object. For example:

  • The theorem:

    Theorem A [1] is great ...

  • The study:

    In the study [1] it is possible to see that ...

  • The statement:

    It was proven that usage of ... leads to problems [1].

However, my students keep doing something like this:

  • Citation is related to the previous sentence! (probably):

    ... and it was proven. [1] The general idea ...

  • As above, but with extra period:

    ... and it was proven. [1]. The general idea ... *- *

  • After the entire paragraph:

    ... and it was proven. [1]

They are arguing that this referencing is correct according to the ISO norm/suggestions. They keep doing that even though I told them to not do so. And they generally try to comply with my guidelines. This is a real exception. It seems this referencing idea is deeply rooted in their brains.

My questions:

  • Is their way of referencing legal? If yes, where are informations how to read this fuzzy notation? And why it does not appear in top journals?
  • How to tell them that this referencing is really unclear in a way that they will understand.

Note: The students I am struggling with are from all continents/countries, pursuing a university degree in electrical/software/mechanical engineering. I would say they are mostly 22±2 years old.

Source Link
matousc
  • 833
  • 1
  • 6
  • 10

Correct way to put reference number in text

I kind of struggle with my students. I always told them to put the reference number (identification) close to the cited object - to make really clear what is the cited object. For example:

  • The theorem A [1] is great ... - theorem A
  • In the study [1] it is possible to see that ... - the study
  • It was proven that usage of ... leads to problems [1]. - the statement

However, my students keep doing something like this:

  • ... and it was proven. [1] The general idea ... - citation is related to the previous sentence! (probably)
  • ... and it was proven. [1]. The general idea ... - the same but with extra dot
  • ... and it was proven. [1] - citation after paragraph - probably related to the whole paragraph?!

They are arguing that this referencing is correct according to the ISO norm/suggestions. They keep doing that even though I told them to not do so. And they generally try to comply with my guidelines. This is a real exception. It seems this referencing idea is deeply rooted in their brains.

My questions:

  • Is their way of referencing legal? If yes, where are informations how to read this fuzzy notation? And why it does not appear in top journals?
  • How to tell them that this referencing is really unclear in a way that they will understand.

Note: Students I am struggling with are from all continents/countries, pursuing a university degree in electrical/software/mechanical engineering. I would say they are mostly 22+-2 years old.