Mixing
Conference held in year X, proceedings published in X+2 - which to use?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
A certain conference was held on year X, but its proceedings were published in print in year X+2.
When I cite an article submitted to that conference (which I read in the published proceedings) - how do I indicate the correct year?
I'm asking specifically about BibTeX field values, but a less-specific answer would also be ok I guess.
citations conference citation-style latex proceedings
asked 4 hours ago
einpoklum
20.7k132118
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
A certain conference was held on year X, but its proceedings were published in print in year X+2.
When I cite an article submitted to that conference (which I read in the published proceedings) - how do I indicate the correct year?
I'm asking specifically about BibTeX field values, but a less-specific answer would also be ok I guess.
citations conference citation-style latex proceedings
asked 4 hours ago
einpoklum
20.7k132118
1
Since someone chasing citations will want the print version, I'd think X+2, perhaps with a note that the conference was in X. Others will have more experience with this.
– Buffy
4 hours ago
In the cases I've seen, the date (X) of the conference is usually part of the title of the proceedings. So by using X+2 as the date in BibTeX, you'd provide all the relevant information.
– Andreas Blass
2 hours ago
Others have recommended using X+2 as the year, and I'm pretty sure this is fairly standard. For what it's worth, when dating older historical material, there are often three different years involved --- the year the paper/book was presented/submitted, the year appearing on the book's title page, and the year that the book actually appeared. I've seen one math history paper (or maybe it was a book) that used all three in the form (x,y,z), and at least in some cases each difference in x < y < z was at least 2 years. And then there's the author's personal date, sometimes at the end . . .
– Dave L Renfro
2 hours ago
Make sure your reference has a DOI and the question becomes (still relevant but mostly) moot.
– E.P.
1 min ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
A certain conference was held on year X, but its proceedings were published in print in year X+2.
When I cite an article submitted to that conference (which I read in the published proceedings) - how do I indicate the correct year?
I'm asking specifically about BibTeX field values, but a less-specific answer would also be ok I guess.
citations conference citation-style latex proceedings
asked 4 hours ago
einpoklum
20.7k132118
A certain conference was held on year X, but its proceedings were published in print in year X+2.
When I cite an article submitted to that conference (which I read in the published proceedings) - how do I indicate the correct year?
I'm asking specifically about BibTeX field values, but a less-specific answer would also be ok I guess.
citations conference citation-style latex proceedings
citations conference citation-style latex proceedings
asked 4 hours ago
einpoklum
20.7k132118
asked 4 hours ago
einpoklum
20.7k132118
asked 4 hours ago
einpoklum
20.7k132118
asked 4 hours ago
einpoklum
20.7k132118
asked 4 hours ago
einpoklum
20.7k132118
20.7k132118
1
Since someone chasing citations will want the print version, I'd think X+2, perhaps with a note that the conference was in X. Others will have more experience with this.
– Buffy
4 hours ago
In the cases I've seen, the date (X) of the conference is usually part of the title of the proceedings. So by using X+2 as the date in BibTeX, you'd provide all the relevant information.
– Andreas Blass
2 hours ago
Others have recommended using X+2 as the year, and I'm pretty sure this is fairly standard. For what it's worth, when dating older historical material, there are often three different years involved --- the year the paper/book was presented/submitted, the year appearing on the book's title page, and the year that the book actually appeared. I've seen one math history paper (or maybe it was a book) that used all three in the form (x,y,z), and at least in some cases each difference in x < y < z was at least 2 years. And then there's the author's personal date, sometimes at the end . . .
– Dave L Renfro
2 hours ago
Make sure your reference has a DOI and the question becomes (still relevant but mostly) moot.
– E.P.
1 min ago
add a comment |Â
1
Since someone chasing citations will want the print version, I'd think X+2, perhaps with a note that the conference was in X. Others will have more experience with this.
– Buffy
4 hours ago
In the cases I've seen, the date (X) of the conference is usually part of the title of the proceedings. So by using X+2 as the date in BibTeX, you'd provide all the relevant information.
– Andreas Blass
2 hours ago
Others have recommended using X+2 as the year, and I'm pretty sure this is fairly standard. For what it's worth, when dating older historical material, there are often three different years involved --- the year the paper/book was presented/submitted, the year appearing on the book's title page, and the year that the book actually appeared. I've seen one math history paper (or maybe it was a book) that used all three in the form (x,y,z), and at least in some cases each difference in x < y < z was at least 2 years. And then there's the author's personal date, sometimes at the end . . .
– Dave L Renfro
2 hours ago
Make sure your reference has a DOI and the question becomes (still relevant but mostly) moot.
– E.P.
1 min ago
1
1
Since someone chasing citations will want the print version, I'd think X+2, perhaps with a note that the conference was in X. Others will have more experience with this.
– Buffy
4 hours ago
Since someone chasing citations will want the print version, I'd think X+2, perhaps with a note that the conference was in X. Others will have more experience with this.
– Buffy
4 hours ago
In the cases I've seen, the date (X) of the conference is usually part of the title of the proceedings. So by using X+2 as the date in BibTeX, you'd provide all the relevant information.
– Andreas Blass
2 hours ago
In the cases I've seen, the date (X) of the conference is usually part of the title of the proceedings. So by using X+2 as the date in BibTeX, you'd provide all the relevant information.
– Andreas Blass
2 hours ago
Others have recommended using X+2 as the year, and I'm pretty sure this is fairly standard. For what it's worth, when dating older historical material, there are often three different years involved --- the year the paper/book was presented/submitted, the year appearing on the book's title page, and the year that the book actually appeared. I've seen one math history paper (or maybe it was a book) that used all three in the form (x,y,z), and at least in some cases each difference in x < y < z was at least 2 years. And then there's the author's personal date, sometimes at the end . . .
– Dave L Renfro
2 hours ago
Others have recommended using X+2 as the year, and I'm pretty sure this is fairly standard. For what it's worth, when dating older historical material, there are often three different years involved --- the year the paper/book was presented/submitted, the year appearing on the book's title page, and the year that the book actually appeared. I've seen one math history paper (or maybe it was a book) that used all three in the form (x,y,z), and at least in some cases each difference in x < y < z was at least 2 years. And then there's the author's personal date, sometimes at the end . . .
– Dave L Renfro
2 hours ago
Make sure your reference has a DOI and the question becomes (still relevant but mostly) moot.
– E.P.
1 min ago
Make sure your reference has a DOI and the question becomes (still relevant but mostly) moot.
– E.P.
1 min ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
When I cite an article submitted to [a conference held in year X and published in year X+2] - how do I indicate the correct year?
The citation should include the publication year, not the year the conference was held. But, the conference year is useful, so it is worth including too. Perhaps:
- Author (X+2) Title. In proceedings of Conf'X...
The Chicago Manual of Style supports this style.
answered 4 hours ago
user2768
6,93012036
Is this definitive, or your preference?
– einpoklum
3 hours ago
I believe it is standard, that is, the year corresponds to publication year, not the year of the conference. Sense can be made of it intuitively, since a citation refers to a published document.
– user2768
3 hours ago
1
I checked the Chicago Manual of Style and it agrees
– user2768
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
When I cite an article submitted to [a conference held in year X and published in year X+2] - how do I indicate the correct year?
The citation should include the publication year, not the year the conference was held. But, the conference year is useful, so it is worth including too. Perhaps:
- Author (X+2) Title. In proceedings of Conf'X...
The Chicago Manual of Style supports this style.
answered 4 hours ago
user2768
6,93012036
Is this definitive, or your preference?
– einpoklum
3 hours ago
I believe it is standard, that is, the year corresponds to publication year, not the year of the conference. Sense can be made of it intuitively, since a citation refers to a published document.
– user2768
3 hours ago
1
I checked the Chicago Manual of Style and it agrees
– user2768
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
When I cite an article submitted to [a conference held in year X and published in year X+2] - how do I indicate the correct year?
The citation should include the publication year, not the year the conference was held. But, the conference year is useful, so it is worth including too. Perhaps:
- Author (X+2) Title. In proceedings of Conf'X...
The Chicago Manual of Style supports this style.
answered 4 hours ago
user2768
6,93012036
Is this definitive, or your preference?
– einpoklum
3 hours ago
I believe it is standard, that is, the year corresponds to publication year, not the year of the conference. Sense can be made of it intuitively, since a citation refers to a published document.
– user2768
3 hours ago
1
I checked the Chicago Manual of Style and it agrees
– user2768
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
When I cite an article submitted to [a conference held in year X and published in year X+2] - how do I indicate the correct year?
The citation should include the publication year, not the year the conference was held. But, the conference year is useful, so it is worth including too. Perhaps:
- Author (X+2) Title. In proceedings of Conf'X...
The Chicago Manual of Style supports this style.
answered 4 hours ago
user2768
6,93012036
When I cite an article submitted to [a conference held in year X and published in year X+2] - how do I indicate the correct year?
The citation should include the publication year, not the year the conference was held. But, the conference year is useful, so it is worth including too. Perhaps:
- Author (X+2) Title. In proceedings of Conf'X...
The Chicago Manual of Style supports this style.
answered 4 hours ago
user2768
6,93012036
edited 3 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
user2768
6,93012036
answered 4 hours ago
user2768
6,93012036
answered 4 hours ago
user2768
6,93012036
6,93012036
Is this definitive, or your preference?
– einpoklum
3 hours ago
I believe it is standard, that is, the year corresponds to publication year, not the year of the conference. Sense can be made of it intuitively, since a citation refers to a published document.
– user2768
3 hours ago
1
I checked the Chicago Manual of Style and it agrees
– user2768
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Is this definitive, or your preference?
– einpoklum
3 hours ago
I believe it is standard, that is, the year corresponds to publication year, not the year of the conference. Sense can be made of it intuitively, since a citation refers to a published document.
– user2768
3 hours ago
1
I checked the Chicago Manual of Style and it agrees
– user2768
3 hours ago
Is this definitive, or your preference?
– einpoklum
3 hours ago
Is this definitive, or your preference?
– einpoklum
3 hours ago
I believe it is standard, that is, the year corresponds to publication year, not the year of the conference. Sense can be made of it intuitively, since a citation refers to a published document.
– user2768
3 hours ago
I believe it is standard, that is, the year corresponds to publication year, not the year of the conference. Sense can be made of it intuitively, since a citation refers to a published document.
– user2768
3 hours ago
1
1
I checked the Chicago Manual of Style and it agrees
– user2768
3 hours ago
I checked the Chicago Manual of Style and it agrees
– user2768
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f117738%2fconference-held-in-year-x-proceedings-published-in-x2-which-to-use%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Since someone chasing citations will want the print version, I'd think X+2, perhaps with a note that the conference was in X. Others will have more experience with this.
– Buffy
4 hours ago
In the cases I've seen, the date (X) of the conference is usually part of the title of the proceedings. So by using X+2 as the date in BibTeX, you'd provide all the relevant information.
– Andreas Blass
2 hours ago
Others have recommended using X+2 as the year, and I'm pretty sure this is fairly standard. For what it's worth, when dating older historical material, there are often three different years involved --- the year the paper/book was presented/submitted, the year appearing on the book's title page, and the year that the book actually appeared. I've seen one math history paper (or maybe it was a book) that used all three in the form (x,y,z), and at least in some cases each difference in x < y < z was at least 2 years. And then there's the author's personal date, sometimes at the end . . .
– Dave L Renfro
2 hours ago
Make sure your reference has a DOI and the question becomes (still relevant but mostly) moot.
– E.P.
1 min ago