Timeline for Using "et al." in maths papers
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:49 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://academia.stackexchange.com/ with https://academia.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jun 22, 2015 at 13:01 | comment | added | Willie Wong | @OswaldVeblen: the question specifically asked "Smith-Smythe-Zeldanov [10]" not "Smith-Smythe-Zeldanov Theorem [10]", so your second comment has a bit of strawman. Regardless, points 2 and 4 of my post already addressed the issues you raised, and gave essentially the same suggestion as you did, except that I recognized (from experience) that on issues of house style copy editors will never budge, so you might as well just skip to the last step directly. | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 12:59 | comment | added | Aleksandr Blekh | @OswaldVeblen: Re: your 1st comment. I'm sorry, but I find the rationale "many readers are never going to get around to looking at the other names" simply ridiculous. It is readers' responsibility to refer to the reference list to obtain full and proper credit. Otherwise, what is the purpose of a reference list? Re: your 2nd comment. I understand your point. However, a scientific artifact, such as a theorem (as opposed to a publication) is usually a product of one-two (max, three) people. Thus, IMHO it is easy to use a Smith-Golden-Circle notation in-text to avoid that problem. | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 12:54 | comment | added | Oswald Veblen | @Aleksandr Blekh: the challenge with the reference list is that, although it has enough information to look up the reference, the prose of the paper you are writing is what helps to establish the name that mathematicians use to refer to the results. So if everyone calls the theorem the "Smith et al theorem" then the other authors don't receive that credit at conferences, etc. I don't want to draw out the discussion, so I won't comment more on this thread, but I think this issue is worth keeping in mind. See also academia.stackexchange.com/a/36731/16122 | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 12:52 | comment | added | Aleksandr Blekh | @WillieWong: I agree. However, I'm not sure whether it makes sense and is feasible to "write around", if there are significantly many in-text citations throughout a paper - in that case, I'd say to just rely on the reference list and assume that readers will make efforts to consult it. | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 12:48 | comment | added | Oswald Veblen | I disagree with "leave it be and don't argue", for the reasons laid out in the post "Et al is unethical" here: sbseminar.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/et-al-is-unethical | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 12:44 | comment | added | Willie Wong | @AleksandrBlekh: fair enough. If in-context credit is really important, there are ways to "write around" the house styles. | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 12:38 | history | edited | Willie Wong | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 633 characters in body
|
| Jun 22, 2015 at 12:29 | comment | added | Aleksandr Blekh | For giving credit there exist a reference list with full listing of all authors (excluding edited volumes). However, my point is that a reader kind of "loses" track of proper credit for all subsequent citations, occurring in multiple different contexts throughout the paper. | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 12:24 | comment | added | Willie Wong | @AleksandrBlekh: for giving credit, is it not enough to have the name appear at least once? I don't think that mentioning the same paper multiple times in my paper means I am giving it "multiples" of credit... // I edited slightly to give more emphasis to that fact you pointed out. | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 12:23 | history | edited | Willie Wong | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jun 22, 2015 at 12:23 | comment | added | Aleksandr Blekh |
Nice answer (+1). However, I have to note that your point on N=5 per APA (and similar for other styles) is shaky, since the full N authors citation should be done only at the initial occurrence. Thus, for all subsequent citations, it boils down to "et al." all over again.
|
|
| Jun 22, 2015 at 12:16 | history | answered | Willie Wong | CC BY-SA 3.0 |