Q. I’m working on a manuscript in which I cite an assignment I gave my students as well as various pieces of writing (and other documents) they produced in response to it. None of this material is available in any archive (besides my filing cabinet). Would you recommend using the CMOS guidelines for unpublished manuscripts for citation? Or do I acknowledge the “archival limits” in the text and, perhaps, use a footnote to tell readers to contact me if they’re curious?
A. A footnote would be appropriate. Not every student assignment merits the label “unpublished manuscript.” A note could explain that copies of all the student work cited are in the author’s possession.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Dear CMOS Staff, in a recent issue of one of our periodicals, I altered the original lineup of the names of five coauthors appearing under the title of an article and reordered them alphabetically. One of the coauthors is unhappy with this and requests, too late, to keep the original lineup, which, I assume, implicitly establishes some hierarchy in authorship. What should be my response to the unhappy coauthor?
A. Your response should be groveling apologies and a promise to issue a correction in the next issue of the journal and in the online version. Name order is important to authors in certain disciplines, as it indicates who is the lead author. It is meaningful to anyone who reads the paper or sees the citation on a résumé. Sometimes employment and promotion depend on having published a certain number of articles as the lead author. This is a truly regrettable error—the kind of error that can put the reputation of your periodical into question. Please make every effort to make amends.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. If you make a statement and footnote it to cite a source, does the scope of the source confine your statement? For example, if I said that a particular health program was successful and footnoted the statement to a source that discussed the program in one country or region, does that confine my statement of success to that country/region? I would appreciate some clarification, thank you.
A. A note need not limit what you write in your paper—you can write anything you want. But if you make a statement that is not supported by your note, you will need another note to support the part that lacks evidence. There are exceptions: opinions and common knowledge don’t require support in notes.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am editing a paper in which the bibliography has a few entries with many coauthors—e.g., over fifty. The author has listed all the names. Surely, when the list of authors goes beyond twenty-five lines—in one case, over a page—I can use et al.? If that’s the case, how many do I list before using et al.? Thanks!
A. If you are using notes-bibliography style, please see CMOS 14.76: “For works with more than ten authors—more common in the natural sciences—Chicago recommends the policy followed by the American Naturalist (see bibliog. 5): only the first seven should be listed in the bibliography, followed by et al. (Where space is limited, the policy of the American Medical Association may be followed: up to six authors’ names are listed; if there are more than six, only the first three are listed, followed by et al.).” If you are using author-date style, list all the authors (CMOS 15.9).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Dear CMOS Staff, I am citing a periodical. In 1918 it started as a weekly and had a month/day date as well as an issue number. In 1920, the periodical became a quarterly, with a year and issue number (but no date). I am citing one from 1918 and one from 1920. Should I cite the 1918 with the date or be consistent with the 1920 without the date?
A. Give all the information you have. Consistency is counterproductive if it requires hiding information from the reader. If it makes you twitch to have no weekly date for 1920, put “[n.d.]” where the month and day would go.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Invariably, when I’m reading historical text, I want to follow a footnote number to its note. In most cases, these are grouped at the end of the book by chapter, each set of notes beginning with 1. I have to go back to the beginning of the chapter to find out what chapter I’m currently reading, then go to the back of the book, find that chapter’s listing of notes, and hunt for my number. The system cries out for a more reader-friendly method.
All notes should be numbered consecutively and then grouped by chapter in the back. This way, I could simply go to the back and look up my note number. And, if I was just interested in that chapter’s notes, they would all be together. It would be a one-step look-up—not the three-step method explained above. Footnote numbers are merely pointers: who really cares how high they go, if they work simply and efficiently?
A. Chicago books normally address the issue in a couple of ways. First, the running head on the left-hand page in the text shows the chapter number; second, the running heads in the notes section consist of “Notes to Pages 000–000.”
It used to be time-consuming to renumber notes if any were added or deleted during editing (which they invariably are). It saved a lot of time and trouble to renumber only one chapter’s notes instead of all the notes to the end of the book. It is still the case that in books where an author refers to note numbers explicitly (“see above, n. 8”; “see below, n. 42”), automatic renumbering does not include such references, leaving errors. (We have yet to receive a MS where the author linked such references electronically.)
Another reason for numbering chapters individually is that chapters are sometimes disseminated (even printed) as separate units, especially in volumes where each chapter is by a different author. In that case, beginning a chapter with a high note number is inelegant and possibly confusing. And in scholarly books like the ones we publish, it’s not unusual to have more than a thousand notes.1,297 (How elegant is that?)1,298
It’s not that there’s never a case for numbering notes straight through; occasionally we do it that way. But it’s a trade-off of conveniences, and for now, we feel that our current system is optimal.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We are currently revising the references of a book chapter and have come across the following problem: Two sources of the same year have the identical first seven authors, and we don’t know how to differentiate them in the text (authors, year). In this case a and b are not applicable, because starting with the eighth author, the authors are not the same. Should we list all eight names in both cases?
A. I’m afraid you’re stuck with naming all the authors:
(Grumpy, Doc, Happy, Sleepy, Bashful, Sneezy, Dopey, and Snow 2008)
(Grumpy, Doc, Happy, Sleepy, Bashful, Sneezy, Dopey, and Queen 2008)
An alternative is to annotate the reference list with something like “In text, referred to as Grumpy et al. [1] 2008.” Putting [1] after the author instead of a after the date indicates that Grumpy et al. [1] and Grumpy et al. [2] are different author groups, whereas 2008a and 2008b indicate different works of the same author group.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m writing an essay based upon an early explorer’s daily journal and quote extensively from it—do I need to cite it every single time, or is there a way to just cite it once at the beginning and it will be understood that subsequent quotes are from the same source?
A. Luckily, you have the power to make it understood! For instance, you can write “All references to X’s journal are to this edition.” Citation styles aren’t meant to burden writers and readers with endless busywork. Rather, they’re a tool for conveying information accurately and concisely and consistently. When writing notes and bibliographies, try not to think “Aargh—do I have to follow all these rules?” but “How can I use these tools to support my point?”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Can ibid. be used for parenthetical citations? If so, what is the precise format (e.g., “ibid. 32” or “ibid, p. 32”)? If not, how can one simplify the citation when it appears multiple times in the same paragraph?
A. Ibid. is fine in parenthetical citations (ibid., 32), and as long as no other source is referred to, you can continue to cite by page number alone (43). Please see CMOS 13.66 and 13.67 for details and examples.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have read in your style guide that it is incorrect to have more than one footnote number attached to a piece of text (e.g., piece of text2, 3, 4) so that footnotes 2, 3, and 4 all contain one citation each. Instead should all three citations be included under one footnote number, and that footnote number be attached to the piece of text?
A. That’s right. You can put as many citations as you want into a single note. Use as many as it takes to cite all your sources for that piece of text.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]