Creating a Manubot CSL that perfects the format of bibliographic entries about rootstock HOT 7 CLOSED

I like the idea of a custom CSL style. We should emphasize what we think is important and not be beholden to tradition.

I generally agree with your points above. Alternative viewpoints on the following:

Just having a year for the date is too imprecise.

True, but we can't always reliably get more precise information. Metadata for some older manuscripts includes placeholder days and months in some cases (e.g. January 1 of the year). For some URLs, I doubt our ability to automatically retrieve accurate date stamps.

Authorship information is important, but often takes up too much of a reference.

This may be reader-dependent. I personally remember more past literature based on authors and dates than titles. Author X 2011 may mean something to me even though This is the title of my important paper does not.

I don't see a need to print the URL. As a reader, I find it easier to search for the title than to type in a URL in most cases.

from rootstock.

I noticed in the meta review manuscript that some of the reference whitespace was missing when CSL fields were absent. See references 19 and 21 for examples in this version of the pdf.

Is that controlled by or fixable in the CSL file? It may only affect references that do not have a date.

Edit: It may be the lack of authors that is the problem, not the lack of date.

from rootstock.

Is that controlled by or fixable in the CSL file? It may only affect references that do not have a date.

Yeah this bugged me too when I was created the revised CSL. I played around a bunch and couldn't find a solution that would always perform appropriate newlines. I can look into a solution. We may have to print "No date", "Date missing", or "In press" as a workaround. Is that acceptable?

In general, when there's no date or other missing metadata, it's because the CSL is incomplete. So generally you should manually override this metadata. But yes, I agree that even with incompete metadata we should provide an aesthetic display.

from rootstock.

"In press" seems journal-specific, and not a good match for some of the resources we may link to. "No date" sounds better to me. Or can we use " " as the default?

Coming up with a placeholder for missing authors is even harder. It's not that content has "No authors", but rather that we don't know the specific author(s) to attribute sometimes.

from rootstock.

In the future, we may update the CSL to list book editors when there are no book authors. See greenelab/meta-review#74

from rootstock.

Another CSL suggestion from #132 (comment) is to add a default value when there is no author:

See meta-review for an example reference without an author. The title and venue are concatenated without whitespace.

The possible solution in #132 (comment) requires further testing.

from rootstock.

I think we did a good first pass at making an optimal CSL style for modern scholarly publishing. So will close this issue.

There are still some spacing issues which were exposed by looking at all metadata combinations in manubot/manubot#110.

from rootstock.