Bibliography - same author not in chronological order

Chris_hk

Firefox 7.0.1
Word 2007
Zotero 2.1.10

I couldn't find any discussion that had this problem solved.

Different items by the same author in my bibliography are not in chronological order (or any order other obvious order for that matter). I tried APSA, American Political Science Review, Perspectives on Politics, re-installed the styles, deleted the bibliography and recreated it, Zotero refresh all to no avail. Any ideas on how to fix this?

Thanks a bunch!

Perry, Elizabeth J. 2009. “A New Rights Consciousness?” Journal of Democracy 20(3): 17-20.

———. 2001. “Challenging the Mandate of Heaven. Popular Protest in Modern China.” Critical Asian Studies 33(2): 163-180.

———. 2002. “Introduction.” In Challenging the Mandate of Heaven. Social Protest and State Power in China, Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, p. ix-xxxii.

———. 1994. “Shanghai’s Strike Wave of 1957.” The China Quarterly (137): 1-27.

———. 2007. “Studying Chinese Politics: Farewell to Revolution?” The China Journal 57: 1-22.

———. 2003. “‘To Rebel is Justified’: Cultural Revolution Influences on Contemporary Chinese Protest.” In Beyond Purge and Holocaust: The Chinese Cultural Revolution Reconsidered, ed. Kam-yee Law. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 262-81.

ajlyon

I'm not sure what you need to do to fix it, but the items are clearly sorted in alphabetical order by title.

ajlyon

And apparently that's exactly what is coded into the APSA style-- sort by author, then title.

Can you provide a link to the APSA style guide to confirm that that's not the desired sorting?

ajlyon

No need-- I just confirmed with p. 24 of the style manual:

List all references alphabetically by author (CMS 16.93).
Give the full first name instead of an initial, unless the author is widely known by initials. Double-space all lines and indent all lines after the first in each entry. When citing several works by the same author, place them in chronological order, with the earliest publication first, but replacing the names of the successive author(s) with a 3-em dash. Repeat the name of the same author only if paired with a new author(s) (CMS 16.103).

Chris_hk

Thanks. Makes sense and seems to be consistent with the other items in my reference list.

The APSA guidebook of 1993 says it should be ordered chronologically:
http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/DocAPSA_RefList_Format.html

The style manual of 2006 seems not to mention the order of references:
http://www.ipsonet.org/data/files/APSAStyleManual2006.pdf

A 2009 publication in APSR does order references chronologically. So I guess this is still the APSA standard:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.164.5604&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Chris_hk

Ooops, you were faster and I oversaw this in the style manual.

ajlyon

Our resident political scientist and style developer can probably fix this in his sleep, so I'll leave this to adamsmith to fix.

adamsmith

thanks for tracking that down - it's up, will show up within 30mins, update the style by re-installing it. You may have to switch to a different style and back for your document to update.

The APSA style is not in a terribly good condition, so do double check your references and post about any other errors you find. (yes, I know, I should fix up the APSA style, but I won't submit to any of their journals anytime soon, so...).

Chris_hk

Thanks! Me neither, I just use it for my dissertation. ;)

Maybe I should better switch to another style? Will try the changes though.

adamsmith

it kind of depends on what types of sources you use - for book, chapters, journal articles and the like the APSA style is perfectly fine.

Chris_hk

Looks good now.
Nothing can stop me from submitting to APSR now. ~~~harrumph

I'll double-check my reference list. My committee should care more about the coherence and completeness of the reference list than about whether or not it is precisely in line APSA standards.

adamsmith

very true - check the rare(r) item types - the may miss crucial information.

Chris_hk

Okay, thanks a bunch for the speedy response. I guess this thread can be marked solved.