I am aware that the question regarding the inclusion (or otherwise) of the place of publication in citations has been answered. What about the publisher, though? I have a personal and rather inexplicable dislike of naming the publisher in my citations, not least because it doesn't seem to add any vital information. Is this illegitimate? Any thoughts would be most welcome. Thank you.

  • I think the idea is that if you can't find the item any other way, you can be pretty sure the publisher has a copy. So it could be valuable information in certain circumstances. Commented Nov 14, 2016 at 20:00
  • @NateEldredge On the other hand, I don't think I have ever seen the publisher being named as part of a citation. Commented Nov 14, 2016 at 20:12
  • 4
    @TobiasKildetoft: Really? It's usually not included when citing a journal or conference article, but in my experience it's always included when citing a book. Commented Nov 14, 2016 at 20:21
  • @NateEldredge Ahh yes, of course. Somehow I did not consider books. Commented Nov 14, 2016 at 20:23
  • Usually, publisher information is required for citing books. If you are citing book, you should cite.
    – Coder
    Commented Nov 14, 2016 at 21:26

1 Answer 1


If the publisher has to be mentioned in a citation depends on the document type (e.g., journal article or book) and the citation style (e.g., APA or Chicago).

You can find some examples here:

I'm not aware of any citation style which doesn't require to name the publisher for a book. For journal articles, it is relatively uncommon to name the publisher.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .