6 added 1183 characters in body
source | link

In the paper I am currently writing I cite works by Bill Smith and Fred Smith.

I refer to them both several times, as several of Bill Smith’s papers provide the basis for some of the techniques I am using, and Fred Smith’s work provides origin for the dataset I am using. This dataset is commonly called The Smith Corpus.

Currently my paper has a paragraph (boldface mine):

We use the Smith Corpus (Smith 2010), as prepared by Johnson et al (2015).
This corpus is partitioned into test, development and training subsets, and has minor clean-up from the original data collected by Smith (2010).
It is also used by Smith et al (2016) and Otter et al (2016).

Where the all uses of Smith, except the last refer to Fred Smith. Only Smith et al (2016) refers to Bill Smith.

Anyone who checks the references section will realize that these are different people. But the citation style I am using, is a surname–year style. So on a casual reading, one might expect the dataset in question to have been introduced in one of Bill Smith’s papers. However, this is incorrect: It is first used in this area by a third author, John Johnson (whom I also cite), then later by Bill Smith, and Sam Otter.

Bill Smith he refers to the corpus as the Smith Corpus in his paper – without qualification in any way.

Is there anything I should be doing about this possible confusion?
Or can I trust the reader to check the reference list if they want the details on who actually did what?


The ~5 page style guide for this conference says

Citations: Citations within the text appear in parentheses as (Gusfield, 1997) or, if the author’s name appears in the text itself, as Gus- field (1997). Using the provided LATEX style, the former is accomplished using \cite and the latter with \shortcite or \newcite. Collapse multiple citations as in (Gusfield, 1997; Aho and Ullman, 1972); this is accomplished with the provided style using commas within the \cite command, e.g., \cite{Gusfield:97,Aho:72}. Append lowercase letters to the year in cases of ambiguities. Treat double authors as in (Aho and Ullman, 1972), but write as in (Chandra et al., 1981) when more than two authors are involved.
...
We will reject without review any papers that do not follow the official style guidelines, anonymity conditions and page limits.

This level of guidance is typical for CS conferences in my field.

While I can of-course decide to make up my own rules for what to do in this case that is not covered clearly by their style guide -- and they probably won't desk-reject for it -- what additional rules should I use (if any)?

In the paper I am currently writing I cite works by Bill Smith and Fred Smith.

I refer to them both several times, as several of Bill Smith’s papers provide the basis for some of the techniques I am using, and Fred Smith’s work provides origin for the dataset I am using. This dataset is commonly called The Smith Corpus.

Currently my paper has a paragraph (boldface mine):

We use the Smith Corpus (Smith 2010), as prepared by Johnson et al (2015).
This corpus is partitioned into test, development and training subsets, and has minor clean-up from the original data collected by Smith (2010).
It is also used by Smith et al (2016) and Otter et al (2016).

Where the all uses of Smith, except the last refer to Fred Smith. Only Smith et al (2016) refers to Bill Smith.

Anyone who checks the references section will realize that these are different people. But the citation style I am using, is a surname–year style. So on a casual reading, one might expect the dataset in question to have been introduced in one of Bill Smith’s papers. However, this is incorrect: It is first used in this area by a third author, John Johnson (whom I also cite), then later by Bill Smith, and Sam Otter.

Bill Smith he refers to the corpus as the Smith Corpus in his paper – without qualification in any way.

Is there anything I should be doing about this possible confusion?
Or can I trust the reader to check the reference list if they want the details on who actually did what?

In the paper I am currently writing I cite works by Bill Smith and Fred Smith.

I refer to them both several times, as several of Bill Smith’s papers provide the basis for some of the techniques I am using, and Fred Smith’s work provides origin for the dataset I am using. This dataset is commonly called The Smith Corpus.

Currently my paper has a paragraph (boldface mine):

We use the Smith Corpus (Smith 2010), as prepared by Johnson et al (2015).
This corpus is partitioned into test, development and training subsets, and has minor clean-up from the original data collected by Smith (2010).
It is also used by Smith et al (2016) and Otter et al (2016).

Where the all uses of Smith, except the last refer to Fred Smith. Only Smith et al (2016) refers to Bill Smith.

Anyone who checks the references section will realize that these are different people. But the citation style I am using, is a surname–year style. So on a casual reading, one might expect the dataset in question to have been introduced in one of Bill Smith’s papers. However, this is incorrect: It is first used in this area by a third author, John Johnson (whom I also cite), then later by Bill Smith, and Sam Otter.

Bill Smith he refers to the corpus as the Smith Corpus in his paper – without qualification in any way.

Is there anything I should be doing about this possible confusion?
Or can I trust the reader to check the reference list if they want the details on who actually did what?


The ~5 page style guide for this conference says

Citations: Citations within the text appear in parentheses as (Gusfield, 1997) or, if the author’s name appears in the text itself, as Gus- field (1997). Using the provided LATEX style, the former is accomplished using \cite and the latter with \shortcite or \newcite. Collapse multiple citations as in (Gusfield, 1997; Aho and Ullman, 1972); this is accomplished with the provided style using commas within the \cite command, e.g., \cite{Gusfield:97,Aho:72}. Append lowercase letters to the year in cases of ambiguities. Treat double authors as in (Aho and Ullman, 1972), but write as in (Chandra et al., 1981) when more than two authors are involved.
...
We will reject without review any papers that do not follow the official style guidelines, anonymity conditions and page limits.

This level of guidance is typical for CS conferences in my field.

While I can of-course decide to make up my own rules for what to do in this case that is not covered clearly by their style guide -- and they probably won't desk-reject for it -- what additional rules should I use (if any)?

5 deleted 3 characters in body
source | link

In the paper I am currently writing I cite works by Bill Smith and Fred Smith.

I refer to them both several times, as several of Bill Smith’s papers provide the basis for some of the techniques I am using, and Fred Smith’s work provides origin for the dataset I am using. This dataset is commonly called The Smith Corpus.

Currently my paper has a paragraph (boldface mine):

We use the Smith corpusCorpus (Smith 2010), as prepared by Johnson et al (2015).
This corpus is partitioned into test, development and training subsets, and has minor clean-up from the original data collected by Smith (2010).
It is also used by Smith et al (2016) and Otter et al (2016).

Where the all uses of Smith, except the last refer to Fred Smith. Only Smith et al (2016) refers to Bill Smith.

Anyone who checks the references section will realize that these are different people. But the citation style I am using, is a surname–year style. So on a casual reading, one might expect the techniquesdataset in question to have been introduced in one of Bill Smith’s papers. However, this is incorrect: It is first used in this area by a third author, John Johnson (whom I also cite), then later by Bill Smith, and Sam Otter.

Bill Smith he refers to the corpus as the Smith Corpus in his paper – without qualification in any way.

Is there anything I should be doing about this possible confusion?
Or can I trust the reader to check the reference list if they want the details on who actually did what?

In the paper I am currently writing I cite works by Bill Smith and Fred Smith.

I refer to them both several times, as several of Bill Smith’s papers provide the basis for some of the techniques I am using, and Fred Smith’s work provides origin for the dataset I am using. This dataset is commonly called The Smith Corpus.

Currently my paper has a paragraph (boldface mine):

We use the Smith corpus (Smith 2010), as prepared by Johnson et al (2015).
This corpus is partitioned into test, development and training subsets, and has minor clean-up from the original data collected by Smith (2010).
It is also used by Smith et al (2016) and Otter et al (2016).

Where the all uses of Smith, except the last refer to Fred Smith. Only Smith et al (2016) refers to Bill Smith.

Anyone who checks the references section will realize that these are different people. But the citation style I am using, is a surname–year style. So on a casual reading, one might expect the techniques in question to have been introduced in one of Bill Smith’s papers. However, this is incorrect: It is first used in this area by a third author, John Johnson (whom I also cite), then later by Bill Smith, and Sam Otter.

Bill Smith he refers to the corpus as the Smith Corpus in his paper – without qualification in any way.

Is there anything I should be doing about this possible confusion?
Or can I trust the reader to check the reference list if they want the details on who actually did what?

In the paper I am currently writing I cite works by Bill Smith and Fred Smith.

I refer to them both several times, as several of Bill Smith’s papers provide the basis for some of the techniques I am using, and Fred Smith’s work provides origin for the dataset I am using. This dataset is commonly called The Smith Corpus.

Currently my paper has a paragraph (boldface mine):

We use the Smith Corpus (Smith 2010), as prepared by Johnson et al (2015).
This corpus is partitioned into test, development and training subsets, and has minor clean-up from the original data collected by Smith (2010).
It is also used by Smith et al (2016) and Otter et al (2016).

Where the all uses of Smith, except the last refer to Fred Smith. Only Smith et al (2016) refers to Bill Smith.

Anyone who checks the references section will realize that these are different people. But the citation style I am using, is a surname–year style. So on a casual reading, one might expect the dataset in question to have been introduced in one of Bill Smith’s papers. However, this is incorrect: It is first used in this area by a third author, John Johnson (whom I also cite), then later by Bill Smith, and Sam Otter.

Bill Smith he refers to the corpus as the Smith Corpus in his paper – without qualification in any way.

Is there anything I should be doing about this possible confusion?
Or can I trust the reader to check the reference list if they want the details on who actually did what?

    Tweeted twitter.com/StackAcademia/status/878513123824676865
4 Removed pointless and irritating emphasis; more informative title; some minor stuff and free proofreading of the excerpt.
source | link

Is Citing two authors with the same surname – is it worth noting in the paper that two authors I citethey are distinct people?

In the paper I am currently writing I cite works by Bill Smith,Bill Smith and Fred SmithFred Smith.

I refer to them both several times, as several of Bill Smith'sBill Smith’s papers providesprovide the basis for some of the techniques I am using, and Fred Smith'sFred Smith’s work provides origin for the dataset I am using. This dataset is commonly called The Smith CorpusThe Smith Corpus.

Currently my paper has a paragraph (boldface mine):

We use the Smith corpus (Smith 2010), as prepared by JohnsonJohnson et al (2015).
This corpus is partitioned into test, development and training subsets, and has minor clean-up from the original data collected by Smith (2010).
It is also usesused by Smith et al (2016), and OtterOtter et al (2016).

Where the all uses of Smith,Smith, except the last arerefer to Fred SmithFred Smith. Only Smith et al (2016) is Bill SmithSmith et al (2016) refers to Bill Smith.

Anyone who checks the references section will realize that these are different people. But the citation style I am using, is a Surname-yearsurname–year style. So on a casual reading, one might expect itthe techniques in question to have been introduced in one of Bill Smith'sBill Smith’s papers. However, this is incorrect, it: It is first used in this area by a third author, John JohnsonJohn Johnson (whowhom I also cite), then later by Bill SmithBill Smith, and Sam OtterSam Otter.

In Bill Smith's paper,Bill Smith he refers to the corpus as the Smith Corpus. WithoutSmith Corpus in his paper – without qualification in any way.

Is there anything I should be doing about this possible confusion?
Or can I trust the reader to check the reference list if they want the details on who actually did what.?

Is it worth noting in the paper that two authors I cite are distinct people?

In the paper I am currently writing I cite works by Bill Smith, and Fred Smith.

I refer to them both several times, as several of Bill Smith's papers provides the basis for some of the techniques I am using, and Fred Smith's work provides origin for the dataset I am using. This dataset is commonly called The Smith Corpus.

Currently my paper has a paragraph:

We use the Smith corpus (Smith 2010), as prepared by Johnson et al (2015).
This corpus is partitioned into test, development and training subsets, and has minor clean-up from the original data collected by Smith (2010).
It is also uses by Smith et al (2016), and Otter et al (2016).

Where the all uses of Smith, except the last are to Fred Smith. Only Smith et al (2016) is Bill Smith.

Anyone who checks the references section will realize that these are different people. But the citation style I am using, is a Surname-year style. So on a casual reading might expect it to have been introduced in one of Bill Smith's papers. However, this is incorrect, it is first used in this area by a third author, John Johnson (who I also cite), then later by Bill Smith, and Sam Otter.

In Bill Smith's paper, he refers to the corpus as the Smith Corpus. Without qualification in any way.

Is there anything I should be doing about this possible confusion?
Or can I trust the reader to check the reference list if they want the details on who actually did what.

Citing two authors with the same surname – is it worth noting that they are distinct people?

In the paper I am currently writing I cite works by Bill Smith and Fred Smith.

I refer to them both several times, as several of Bill Smith’s papers provide the basis for some of the techniques I am using, and Fred Smith’s work provides origin for the dataset I am using. This dataset is commonly called The Smith Corpus.

Currently my paper has a paragraph (boldface mine):

We use the Smith corpus (Smith 2010), as prepared by Johnson et al (2015).
This corpus is partitioned into test, development and training subsets, and has minor clean-up from the original data collected by Smith (2010).
It is also used by Smith et al (2016) and Otter et al (2016).

Where the all uses of Smith, except the last refer to Fred Smith. Only Smith et al (2016) refers to Bill Smith.

Anyone who checks the references section will realize that these are different people. But the citation style I am using, is a surname–year style. So on a casual reading, one might expect the techniques in question to have been introduced in one of Bill Smith’s papers. However, this is incorrect: It is first used in this area by a third author, John Johnson (whom I also cite), then later by Bill Smith, and Sam Otter.

Bill Smith he refers to the corpus as the Smith Corpus in his paper – without qualification in any way.

Is there anything I should be doing about this possible confusion?
Or can I trust the reader to check the reference list if they want the details on who actually did what?

3 added 545 characters in body
source | link
2 added 545 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link