DOI and Thesis

Two questions I am hoping to get some help on.

Am finishing up my monograph, and have used Zotero for all of the footnoting. I'm using Chicago 17 (full note with ibid) and I am finding that it is not citing dissertations correctly - that is, it isn't including the PhD/MD part of the citation. How can I correct that?
Secondly, I want to remove DOIs from all citations. Yes I understand that it is part of the style, however, none of the publishers (journal or otherwise) want them, so I just want to know how to edit them out of the style for now.
  • Where are you putting PhD/MD? It should be in the "Type" field and the style is picking this up for me.

    I think removing DOIs is a terrible idea, but alas finding
    <choose>
    <if type="legal_case" match="none">
    <choose>
    <if variable="DOI">
    <text variable="DOI" prefix="https://doi.org/"/>;
    </if>
    <else>
    <text variable="URL"/>
    </else>
    </choose>
    </if>
    </choose>


    and changing the second line to
    <if type="post-weblog webpage" match="any">
    is probably the least disruptive quick way to remove DOIs and most other URLs but details kind of depend on what you want
  • The DOI is the single most important piece of the reference—it is the most reliable way for readers to find the sources you are citing. I would really strongly recommend retaining it.
  • edited 27 days ago
    What is your evidence that journal publishers do not want DOIs? I review for several journals and publishers. All require DOIs with manuscript reference lists. How else is a reviewer to easily confirm that the cited document truly supports the author's statement. My knowledge of the literature is good but not perfect -- there are always cited items with which I'm not familiar. I must directly consult these sources.

    Why would you believe that publishers would agree to make life difficult for reviewers and for their readers who want to gain access to an interesting citation? For many readers of your article the reference list will be almost as important as your main findings.

    edit: You might be surprised at the prevalence of references to articles that don't support the assertion or even to articles that do not exist. I have no idea how many manuscripts are rejected for this reason before being sent out for review but at least one in five manuscripts I review for BMJ Group or JAMA journals have multiple cites to sources that do not say what the manuscript authors claim. I also review for Sage and Taylor and Francis journals and manuscripts with these hollow references are somewhat more common there. At the very least these manuscripts are returned for major revision if not rejected outright. Know this, there are lists of author names for those who out of carelessness or direct intent have gamed their reference lists. Honesty issues aside, journal editors and publishers want reference lists to be accurate because this affects the journal's Impact Factor.
  • @adamsmith It is in the type field.
    In Chicago 16 it produces the correct format: Teresa Foster, “Felonious Women & Familial Bonds: Transportation to the Maryland Colony 1718-1739” (PhD, UMBC, 2018)
    In Chicago 17 Full Note with ibid it has: Teresa Foster, “Felonious Women & Familial Bonds: Transportation to the Maryland Colony 1718-1739” (UMBC, 2018) - so the "type" is missing.

    @DWL-SDCA I take your point re: DOI. I always leave them in, but my last book chapter and two journal publications editors cut them for word length. So I assumed that they'd prefer just to chop them.
  • If you are concerned with length of DOIs, you can install the DOI Manager plugin to swap out shortDOIs for the full ones. That said, I would recommend leaving it to the editors to make that decision (personally I fight them to leave the DOIs in).
  • OK, there seems to be a problem with the ibid version. It's fine in the regular 17th edition, so should be a quick fix.
Sign In or Register to comment.