Q. An author wrote the following sentence: “Indeed, there has been extraordinary growth in the field, with the number of publications discussing epigenetics growing from approximately 100 in 1992 to well over 18,000 in the last year.” The citation is to the Google Scholar website. We were unsure what to do with this. Citing the website itself seemed odd, but he did get his information there. How would you handle this?
A. Since Google Scholar is not a definitive or authoritative source for statistics, the author should be asked to qualify the statement considerably in the text or in a note. For instance, he might write, “There has been extraordinary growth in the field: a search using the keyword epigenetics at Google Scholar turned up approximately 100 publications discussing epigenetics in 1992 as compared to well over 18,000 in the last year.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hi—A question about CMOS citations with two examples:
(1) Leigh Wood, “University Learners of Mathematics,” in Research in Mathematics Education in Australasia 2004–2007 (Rotterdam: Sense, 2008), 73–98.
(2) Leigh Wood and Ian Solomonides, “Different Disciplines, Different Transitions,” Mathematics Education Research Journal 20, no. 2 (2008): 117–34.
Why does (1), a book chapter, use a comma before the page numbers, whereas (2), a journal article, use a colon? Is it just for historical reasons? It seems a little idiosyncratic for no apparent reason.
A. I suspect it’s because journal citations are typically more complex: that is, they can have numbers for volumes, issues, series, parts, columns, et cetera, in addition to page numbers. Journal citations are also likely to be read by someone whose first language is different from that of the citation. Thus the use of a colon right before the page number is helpful as a signal to someone trying to navigate a complex citation, perhaps in another language.
Or it might just be one of those things the original writers of CMOS overlooked and no one has ever questioned.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How would you cite Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, Question 65, Article 4? Thank you.
A. If you are using Chicago style, follow the form at CMOS 14.243 (“Identifying numbers in classical references”):
Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.65.4.
Note that you need a part number as well as a question and article number.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We publish books in the water and mining industries. Authors list many references, and we’re finding that in-text citations are becoming more and more excessive. For example, one simple sentence lists seven sources, which seems unreasonable. One chapter is 158 pages long, of which 49 pages are references. Do publishers set some kind of limits on the quantity of citations? Of course it is necessary to avoid plagiarism, but 49 pages of citations seems to be too much! How would you suggest we address this with our authors?
A. It’s the job of the acquiring editor to assess the source citations in a book or article (or send the manuscript out to experts who can assess them), and if they are excessive, it’s his or her job to work with the writer to bring them under control. Our own books vary dramatically, ranging from almost no notes or bibliography entries to tons of them. It wouldn’t be right to set a limit, however, because writers must be free to document their work fully. Unless you’re publishing books with no oversight or development, someone must be in charge of judging the quality of each book, and this person should decide whether the source citations are really necessary.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I found some phone conversations between Richard Nixon and some other people in office, and I’m not sure how to cite them. Should I cite the transcript and include the website that they came from, too? They came from the National Security Archive, George Washington University.
A. Yes, cite the transcript and give the name and URL of the website where you found them. You can find examples to follow at CMOS 14.211 and 14.229.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am copyediting a lengthy family biography, and the authors are calling for what they call “trailing phrase” notes as a documentation method. Rather than a superscript number in the text with corresponding source information in endnotes, they want to use no notes in text and a “trailing phrase” and page number with each source citation in the endnotes. What do you think?
A. Please see CMOS 14.53, “Notes keyed to text by line or page numbers.” This system is useful to writers who fear that their readers would be intimidated by note numbers or who simply don’t want the flow of text to be interrupted.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My author is citing biblical scripture references in the text, but using footnotes for all other citations. It is important to him to keep the scripture references in the text. My question: should he also cite them in the footnotes, for consistency? That is, should all citations be either only in the text or only in the notes? This is a scholarly work.
A. There’s no need for all citations to be in the same place. When a source can be easily integrated into the text (“We read in Psalm 42:8 that . . .”), it makes sense to do so for the convenience of the reader. And there is no reason to repeat in a note a source that has just been mentioned in the text. Many scholarly books have endnotes (for full citations), footnotes (for discursive asides and some citations), and in-text citations (for short references). Please have a look at the opening paragraphs of chapter 14 in CMOS.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I see nothing in CMS about indicating the language a book is translated from, which seems shortsighted. Thanks.
A. In any context where readers might not be able to guess the original language of a title and would find the information helpful, the writer or editor can annotate the citation (e.g., “Translated from Incan”). Usually, however, in notes and bibliographies many or most of the translated works are either from familiar languages or from unfamiliar languages that have been discussed and identified throughout the text. In that case, it would be tiresome and patronizing to repeatedly point out the obvious.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. CMOS 15.20 says, “Two or more works by the same author in the same year must be differentiated by the addition of a, b, and so forth (regardless of whether they were authored, edited, compiled, or translated), and are listed alphabetically by title. Text citations consist of author and year plus letter.” “Conga Line” is a sequel to “Jazz Madness”—published separately but in the same year. My author insists the sequel appear second in the reference list rather than alphabetically. Nothing in the titles indicates that these are companion volumes, but the author is getting petulant. Advice, please!
A. Since the author feels strongly about the matter, if you have the power to show a little flexibility, it would be the gracious thing to do. I can’t think of any way in which this would confuse or inconvenience readers, although if in doubt, it would be easy enough to clarify by annotating the citation, e.g., “(sequel to ‘Jazz Madness’).”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. A book in my bibliography is an extended interview with philosopher Jean-François Lyotard done by an editor, Jean-Loup Thébaud. The title page identifies the authors as Lyotard and Thébaud (in that order), but the Library of Congress CIP data lists only Lyotard on the main card. The book is translated from the French edition. According to WorldCat the first edition (1979) is titled Au Juste: Conversations, but a later (2006) edition is simply titled Au Juste, and WorldCat lists both Lyotard and Thébaud as authors for both French editions. How should I cite this work in my text and bibliography and why?
A. Cite whichever edition you consulted for your work, because documenting your sources is the primary purpose of providing citations. Or, if you are merely including the book as recommended reading, cite it in the form (or forms) your readers can locate most easily, because directing readers to sources is another purpose of citing. If the latter involves adding “Sometimes cataloged under both Lyotard and Thébaud” or “First published in French as . . .” to the end of the citation, there’s nothing wrong with that.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]