APSA trouble with encyclopedias

wdblak
On my reference list for an encyclopedia article using APSA style, I get the following:

Kennedy, Duncan. 2001. “Legal Formalism” eds. Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences.

It should read like this:

Kennedy, Duncan. 2001. “Legal Formalism” eds. Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. New York: Elsevier.
  • adamsmith
    The APSA style manual has no separate guidelines for encyclopedia articles. These types of edited handbooks and encyclopedias are not typical encyclopedias anyway and should be treated/cited as

    "Chapter in Multiauthor Collection." (CMS 17.69)

    Hermann, Margaret G. 1984. “Personality and Foreign
    Policy Decision Making: A Study of Fifty-Three Heads
    of Government.” In Foreign Policy Decision Making, eds.
    Donald A. Sylvan and Steve Chan. New York: Praeger,
    133–152.

    (cf. p. 25 here: http://www.ipsonet.org/data/files/APSAStyleManual2006.pdf )

    You'll get that style by using the "book section" item type.
  • wdblak
    Got it, thanks!
  • adamsmith
    as a general note - the APSA style may well have issues with less frequently used item types. So please do double check those (if you're using them) and let us know if you find any problems.
  • wdblak
    I found an using APSA style to reference a conference paper. Style guide mandates this:

    Mefford, Dwain, and Brian Ripley. 1987. “The Cognitive
    Foundation of Regime Theory.” Presented at the Annual
    Meeting of the American Political Science Association,
    Chicago.

    What I get is:

    Mefford, Dwain, and Brian Ripley. 1987. “The Cognitive
    Foundation of Regime Theory.” In Chicago.
  • adamsmith
    use the presentation item type - "conference paper" is for papers published in proceedings (as they basically never are in polisci).

This is an old discussion that has not been active in a long time. Before commenting here, you should strongly consider starting a new discussion instead. If you think the content of this discussion is still relevant, you can link to it from your new discussion.

Sign In or Register to comment.