I think this is more a matter of fact rather than one of policy, so
anyone can reply.
Stata manual entries do sometimes include extra references that are not
explicitly referenced in the body of each entry. It is a good policy in
(e.g.) many academic journals -- the Stata Journal included -- that
references in a list of References should all correspond to references
actually mentioned in the body of the text. However, StataCorp can make
the rules for their own documentation and for a long time they have
sometimes added extra references, more or less in the spirit of "As
you're interested in this, these references may prove helpful".
Conversely, if you see a reference and it's not obvious why that
reference was included, email StataCorp directly with a specific
suggestion. Any StataCorp email address will do, as people will forward
it promptly to the individual most concerned. (We all love doing that.)
Bear in mind, however, that very occasionally a reference is included as
a little joke.
I suggest that discussion of which references should have been included
in particular books should be directed at the authors concerned, so that
they can consider them for future editions or movie versions.
Nick
[email protected]
Martin Weiss
is it policy in the Stata manuals to provide
references not cited in the main text? Kit Baum`s programming book
http://www.stata-press.com/books/isp.html is certainly a very good
source
for Stata users, and does indeed contain two references to -separate-,
but I do not see a citation in the text to it. Nick`s tip mentioned
above probably deserves a place there as well...
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
