referencing?
<div class="IPBDescription">scientific literature</div>Quick question. When referencing within a paper is it safe to assume that you don't have to repeat a source after every line containing referenced material?
e.g
"Human adenovirus 36 is just one virus within the species Human Adenovirus D (Faquet et al. 2005). Not yet assigned within an order, Human Adenovirus D belongs to the family Adenoviridae and the genus Mastadenovirus (Faquet et al. 2005). All the viruses within the family Adenoviridae have non-enveloped isometric nucleocapsids, made up of 240 hexons (polypeptide II) and 12 pentons (polypeptide III and IV) (Faquet et al. 2005). Adenoviridae have glycosylated protein fibres with distal knobs, made up of three polypeptide IV proteins, protruding from each of the pentons (Faquet et al. 2005)."
I find it to be superfluous having FACK-ET! after every sentence. Surely it's acceptable to just slap the name on the end of the paragraph?
e.g
"Human adenovirus 36 is just one virus within the species Human Adenovirus D (Faquet et al. 2005). Not yet assigned within an order, Human Adenovirus D belongs to the family Adenoviridae and the genus Mastadenovirus (Faquet et al. 2005). All the viruses within the family Adenoviridae have non-enveloped isometric nucleocapsids, made up of 240 hexons (polypeptide II) and 12 pentons (polypeptide III and IV) (Faquet et al. 2005). Adenoviridae have glycosylated protein fibres with distal knobs, made up of three polypeptide IV proteins, protruding from each of the pentons (Faquet et al. 2005)."
I find it to be superfluous having FACK-ET! after every sentence. Surely it's acceptable to just slap the name on the end of the paragraph?
Comments
sorry, it's not actually a quote of the article it's my partners wording including the key information from the article. I just figured that you only have to add a citation when you change sources within the paper.
"blahblahlbah ²" blah blah "Blahblahblah ²"
then at the bottom of the page
² (blahblah 1997)
"blahblahlbah ²" blah blah "Blahblahblah ²"
then at the bottom of the page
² (blahblah 1997)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a different referencing style, normally common in the actual journal articles, I much prefer it but we have to follow this style. (plus no footnotes)
@tycho - yea I figured as much, just wanted a second opinion before I go altering the paper.
@tycho - yea I figured as much, just wanted a second opinion before I go altering the paper.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just one reference for each block of contiguous quoted/paraphrased/extracted material; if you start bringing in your own information and then use a source again, then you should throw another reference in there (foot notes with the same information as above can use ibid. (usually with a changed page number) which is short for ibidem which is latin for "in the same place" or something - I've never seen it outside a footnote or bibliography). Although it can depend on the style you're using.
The way an English uni might do it is:
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah "blah blah blah blah blah". (Blabitus 2002) Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah "blah blah blah" blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. (Blabitus, 2003)
If you come back to the same reference in a later paragraph, you have to cite the full reference again.
So it's: "Citation". (Surname, YYYY:P)
Y= year of publication, P= page beginning citation
---
So glad I don't have to write any of those essays any more.
Like I'm going to page 584 from page xvii to find out how much William Marshal's new destrier cost in 1198 and where that information came from? Pfffft. Endnotes are for people who don't want scholars to find their crappy misrepresented sources, since they know most people are too lazy to flip back and forth between hundreds of pages of text (and when they do, remember the exact reasons for why they might be doing it).
Using endnotes is like saying, "Here, let me inconvenience you." Then you've got an actual bibliography right after that, like you're all fancy for listing your sources twice in different ways - yeah, that's productive. Plus they're always smug about it, since the endnotes are always in itty-bitty footnote size (which is fine for footnotes, but you're putting this crap at the end, you don't need to save page space unless you're a cheap lout who should have just omitted his endnotes and released his 'scientifically created' publication to Cosmo so that teen girls can read his crappy endnote-filled ramblings). They're always either triple spaced or scrunched on top of eachother, like endnotes aren't even capable of being printed correctly. Plus they always throw like 6 appendices in there, and you just don't know if the endnotes are coming before or after that, since you know some halfwit is going to put endnotes on his appendix material. It's even better when the endnotes come after the appendices, but before the figures, maps and drawings - that's awesome.
Now you're thinking, "What could possibly be worse than endnotes?" End of chapter notes, that's what. Now instead of the inconvenience of having to flip to the end of a book you've got the unbridled entertainment of finding the end of a chapter in the middle of a book. You know it's going to be one of those crappy books where the pages all stick together and you can't scan through it either; you'll be flipping pages individually or going to the table of contents searching for the next chapter so you can backpedal from there to the end of the part you want. End of chapter notes are diabolic and anyone who uses them has assuredly made a pact with demonic forces.