Nick,
While I agree with the principles of the argument you put
forth in your message, unfortunately your example reference
is poor.
The fact is that everybody knows that the Foo and Bar method
(fubar: fouled up beyond all recognition) is a triple-blind
randomization method that was first defined in WW-II and has
been in continuous use ever since, though many users fail to
give credit properly when they employ it. You merely have the
publication year incorrect.
Perhaps, had you referred to Watis and Dis (2001), the
point would have been clearer.
Tom
P.S. the full reference is:
Watis IM, Dis UR. 2001. Serendipity in the pursuit of
pre-ordained results. J Random Sci 37245: 34-11.
-----------------------------------
Thomas J. Steichen
[email protected]
-----------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nick Cox
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 6:21 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: st: References
Has anyone implemented the method of Foo and Bar (1997)
in Stata?
Well, perhaps there is a Foo and Bar (1997) reference,
even though I just invented it.
But otherwise, this should mean as little to you
as do several references that are no more detailed
in many postings to the list -- unless you belong
to the same microcommunity as the poster.
Despite several requests this poor practice continues.
Once more, with a rationale this time:
1. This practice is uninformative. Good postings
give detail on references, which might be extremely
interesting or useful to other members of the list,
even if they cannot solve your problem. And the more
that everyone gives good detail, the more the list is informative
to all.
2. This practice is insensitive. You should try
to remember that the list is interdisciplinary
and international. The only literature we share is
the Stata documentation (not even that in some cases).
3. This practice is inefficient. Perhaps someone
has solved the same problem, but they know of it in
terms of quite different references. A bare reference makes
it more likely that your question will not be understood.
Despite disciplinary differences, in most disciplines
represented in the Stata community the minimal standard for referencing
papers is surely
Author names with initials. Year. Paper title. Journal
title. Volume: Pages.
although shuffling of that information is fine too.
Nick
[email protected]
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
-----------------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message, including any
attachment(s), contains information that may be confidential,
protected by the attorney-client or other legal privileges, and/or
proprietary non-public information. If you are not an intended
recipient of this message or an authorized assistant to an intended
recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and
then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution,
or reproduction of this message and/or any of its attachments (if
any) by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be
unlawful.
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
