References

When putting references in written work - how should one order them?
Alphabetically by first author, or chonologically by year?

(Barnett et al. 2005; Øvretveit et al. 1997; Watson 2004; )

or

(Øvretveit et al. 1997; Watson 2004; Barnett et al. 2005)

?

I am tending towards the chronological, but I am not sure if there is a
preference.

All pointers appreciated!

"Caol MacThòmais" wrote:
> When putting references in written work - how should one order them?
> Alphabetically by first author, or chonologically by year?
>
> (Barnett et al. 2005; Øvretveit et al. 1997; Watson 2004; )
>
> or
>
> (Øvretveit et al. 1997; Watson 2004; Barnett et al. 2005)
>
> I am tending towards the chronological, but I am not sure if there is a
> preference.
>
> All pointers appreciated!

If you are using Harvard then as far as I know there are no guidelines on
whether the names should be in alphabetical order or whether the names/years
cited should be in chronological order. It would make sense to use
alphabetical order because the authors' names in the reference list should
be in alphabetical order. Of course Barnett et al should only be used after
Barnett and all the other authors have been cited previously. Your
university's librarians should be able to clarify this issue.

On 2006-11-30 18:47:47 +0000, "Handy" <no-spam-here@e-mail.net> said:

> "Caol MacThòmais" wrote:
>> When putting references in written work - how should one order them?
>> Alphabetically by first author, or chonologically by year?
>>
>> (Barnett et al. 2005; Øvretveit et al. 1997; Watson 2004; )
>>
>> or
>>
>> (Øvretveit et al. 1997; Watson 2004; Barnett et al. 2005)
>>
>> I am tending towards the chronological, but I am not sure if there is a
>> preference.
>>
>> All pointers appreciated!
>
> It would make sense to use alphabetical order because the authors'
> names in the reference list should be in alphabetical order.

I suppose so. I will as around here to see if the uni have any preferences.

> Of course Barnett et al should only be used after Barnett and all the
> other authors have been cited previously.

Really? My uni's guide to Harvard says to use "et al" in the first
instance where more than two authors wrote a source, no mention of
listing in full anywhere other than in the reference list.

kt.

"Caol MacThòmais" wrote:
> Really? My uni's guide to Harvard says to use "et al" in the first
> instance where more than two authors wrote a source, no mention of listing
> in full anywhere other than in the reference list.

Then follow the guide, lots of unis apply their own interpretation, then the
some markers have their own interpretations and preferences, so it's often a
shambles anyway. Some of them couldn't agree what day of the week it is.

On 2006-12-01 16:48:20 +0000, "Handy" <no-spam-here@e-mail.net> said:

> "Caol MacThòmais" wrote:
>> Really? My uni's guide to Harvard says to use "et al" in the first
>> instance where more than two authors wrote a source, no mention of
>> listing in full anywhere other than in the reference list.
>
> Then follow the guide, lots of unis apply their own interpretation,
> then the some markers have their own interpretations and preferences,
> so it's often a shambles anyway. Some of them couldn't agree what day
> of the week it is.

Yep. I had one essay marked with the comment telling me not to perrper
references throughout the text, but to put the m all at the end of the
paragraph, which seemed odd to me - if one is making many points
throgout a paragraph, how would a reader tell which reference was
apropriate to which section? however wanting to fit in with the markers
I did as they suggested for the nest essay, only to be told to put
references in the text at relevant points...

a 'freind of a freind' accidentally sumbitted an essay twice, I am told
- one failed, one got a glowing report. Whether this happened I cannot
tell, but it sounds plausable!

"Caol MacThòmais" wrote:
> a 'freind of a freind' accidentally sumbitted an essay twice, I am told -
> one failed, one got a glowing report. Whether this happened I cannot tell,
> but it sounds plausable!

I would only be surprised if it was otherwise. There are usually wide
variations in marks for the same essays marked by different markers and even
by the same markers at different times. Second marking and internal/external
moderation can improve marking consistency, reliability and validity to some
extent.

"Handy" wrote ...
>> Really? My uni's guide to Harvard says to use "et al" in the first
>> instance where more than two authors wrote a source, no mention of
>> listing in full anywhere other than in the reference list.
>
> Then follow the guide, lots of unis apply their own interpretation, then
> the some markers have their own interpretations and preferences, so it's
> often a shambles anyway. Some of them couldn't agree what day of the week
> it is.

In the absence of a local guide, follow the example of a journal your tutors
refer to.

There's no 'right' answer to Harvard referencing, it does vary.

The important tip is to be consistent; and if writing for publication, do it
the way your target journal does it!
--

Andrew Heenan
http://www.realnurse.net/

	#1
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Caol_MacTh=F2mais?=	References When putting references in written work - how should one order them? Alphabetically by first author, or chonologically by year? (Barnett et al. 2005; Øvretveit et al. 1997; Watson 2004; ) or (Øvretveit et al. 1997; Watson 2004; Barnett et al. 2005) ? I am tending towards the chronological, but I am not sure if there is a preference. All pointers appreciated!

	#2
Handy	Re: References "Caol MacThòmais" wrote: > When putting references in written work - how should one order them? > Alphabetically by first author, or chonologically by year? > > (Barnett et al. 2005; Øvretveit et al. 1997; Watson 2004; ) > > or > > (Øvretveit et al. 1997; Watson 2004; Barnett et al. 2005) > > I am tending towards the chronological, but I am not sure if there is a > preference. > > All pointers appreciated! If you are using Harvard then as far as I know there are no guidelines on whether the names should be in alphabetical order or whether the names/years cited should be in chronological order. It would make sense to use alphabetical order because the authors' names in the reference list should be in alphabetical order. Of course Barnett et al should only be used after Barnett and all the other authors have been cited previously. Your university's librarians should be able to clarify this issue.

	#3
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Caol_MacTh=F2mais?=	Re: References On 2006-11-30 18:47:47 +0000, "Handy" <no-spam-here@e-mail.net> said: > "Caol MacThòmais" wrote: >> When putting references in written work - how should one order them? >> Alphabetically by first author, or chonologically by year? >> >> (Barnett et al. 2005; Øvretveit et al. 1997; Watson 2004; ) >> >> or >> >> (Øvretveit et al. 1997; Watson 2004; Barnett et al. 2005) >> >> I am tending towards the chronological, but I am not sure if there is a >> preference. >> >> All pointers appreciated! > > It would make sense to use alphabetical order because the authors' > names in the reference list should be in alphabetical order. I suppose so. I will as around here to see if the uni have any preferences. > Of course Barnett et al should only be used after Barnett and all the > other authors have been cited previously. Really? My uni's guide to Harvard says to use "et al" in the first instance where more than two authors wrote a source, no mention of listing in full anywhere other than in the reference list. kt.

	#5
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Caol_MacTh=F2mais?=	Re: References On 2006-12-01 16:48:20 +0000, "Handy" <no-spam-here@e-mail.net> said: > "Caol MacThòmais" wrote: >> Really? My uni's guide to Harvard says to use "et al" in the first >> instance where more than two authors wrote a source, no mention of >> listing in full anywhere other than in the reference list. > > Then follow the guide, lots of unis apply their own interpretation, > then the some markers have their own interpretations and preferences, > so it's often a shambles anyway. Some of them couldn't agree what day > of the week it is. Yep. I had one essay marked with the comment telling me not to perrper references throughout the text, but to put the m all at the end of the paragraph, which seemed odd to me - if one is making many points throgout a paragraph, how would a reader tell which reference was apropriate to which section? however wanting to fit in with the markers I did as they suggested for the nest essay, only to be told to put references in the text at relevant points... a 'freind of a freind' accidentally sumbitted an essay twice, I am told - one failed, one got a glowing report. Whether this happened I cannot tell, but it sounds plausable!

	#7
Andrew Heenan	Re: References "Handy" wrote ... >> Really? My uni's guide to Harvard says to use "et al" in the first >> instance where more than two authors wrote a source, no mention of >> listing in full anywhere other than in the reference list. > > Then follow the guide, lots of unis apply their own interpretation, then > the some markers have their own interpretations and preferences, so it's > often a shambles anyway. Some of them couldn't agree what day of the week > it is. In the absence of a local guide, follow the example of a journal your tutors refer to. There's no 'right' answer to Harvard referencing, it does vary. The important tip is to be consistent; and if writing for publication, do it the way your target journal does it! -- Andrew Heenan http://www.realnurse.net/