Conference held in year X, proceedings published in X+2 - which to use?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
8
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 Oct 1 at 12:39
einpoklum
20.7k132118
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
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 Oct 1 at 12:39
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
Oct 1 at 12:41
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
Oct 1 at 14:41
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
Oct 1 at 14:50
Make sure your reference has a DOI and the question becomes (still relevant but mostly) moot.
– E.P.
Oct 1 at 17:10
1
@E.P.: How does it become moot?
– einpoklum
Oct 1 at 17:16
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
up vote
8
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 Oct 1 at 12:39
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 Oct 1 at 12:39
einpoklum
20.7k132118
asked Oct 1 at 12:39
einpoklum
20.7k132118
asked Oct 1 at 12:39
einpoklum
20.7k132118
asked Oct 1 at 12:39
einpoklum
20.7k132118
asked Oct 1 at 12:39
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
Oct 1 at 12:41
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
Oct 1 at 14:41
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
Oct 1 at 14:50
Make sure your reference has a DOI and the question becomes (still relevant but mostly) moot.
– E.P.
Oct 1 at 17:10
1
@E.P.: How does it become moot?
– einpoklum
Oct 1 at 17:16
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
Oct 1 at 12:41
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
Oct 1 at 14:41
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
Oct 1 at 14:50
Make sure your reference has a DOI and the question becomes (still relevant but mostly) moot.
– E.P.
Oct 1 at 17:10
1
@E.P.: How does it become moot?
– einpoklum
Oct 1 at 17:16
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
Oct 1 at 12:41
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
Oct 1 at 12:41
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
Oct 1 at 14:41
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
Oct 1 at 14:41
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
Oct 1 at 14:50
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
Oct 1 at 14:50
Make sure your reference has a DOI and the question becomes (still relevant but mostly) moot.
– E.P.
Oct 1 at 17:10
Make sure your reference has a DOI and the question becomes (still relevant but mostly) moot.
– E.P.
Oct 1 at 17:10
1
1
@E.P.: How does it become moot?
– einpoklum
Oct 1 at 17:16
@E.P.: How does it become moot?
– einpoklum
Oct 1 at 17:16
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
13
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 Oct 1 at 13:09
user2768
7,07012237
1
Is this definitive, or your preference?
– einpoklum
Oct 1 at 13:21
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
Oct 1 at 13:26
4
I checked the Chicago Manual of Style and it agrees
– user2768
Oct 1 at 13:37
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
13
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 Oct 1 at 13:09
user2768
7,07012237
1
Is this definitive, or your preference?
– einpoklum
Oct 1 at 13:21
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
Oct 1 at 13:26
4
I checked the Chicago Manual of Style and it agrees
– user2768
Oct 1 at 13:37
add a comment |Â
up vote
13
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 Oct 1 at 13:09
user2768
7,07012237
1
Is this definitive, or your preference?
– einpoklum
Oct 1 at 13:21
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
Oct 1 at 13:26
4
I checked the Chicago Manual of Style and it agrees
– user2768
Oct 1 at 13:37
add a comment |Â
up vote
13
down vote
accepted
up vote
13
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 Oct 1 at 13:09
user2768
7,07012237
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 Oct 1 at 13:09
user2768
7,07012237
edited Oct 1 at 13:37
answered Oct 1 at 13:09
user2768
7,07012237
answered Oct 1 at 13:09
user2768
7,07012237
answered Oct 1 at 13:09
user2768
7,07012237
7,07012237
1
Is this definitive, or your preference?
– einpoklum
Oct 1 at 13:21
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
Oct 1 at 13:26
4
I checked the Chicago Manual of Style and it agrees
– user2768
Oct 1 at 13:37
add a comment |Â
1
Is this definitive, or your preference?
– einpoklum
Oct 1 at 13:21
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
Oct 1 at 13:26
4
I checked the Chicago Manual of Style and it agrees
– user2768
Oct 1 at 13:37
1
1
Is this definitive, or your preference?
– einpoklum
Oct 1 at 13:21
Is this definitive, or your preference?
– einpoklum
Oct 1 at 13:21
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
Oct 1 at 13:26
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
Oct 1 at 13:26
4
4
I checked the Chicago Manual of Style and it agrees
– user2768
Oct 1 at 13:37
I checked the Chicago Manual of Style and it agrees
– user2768
Oct 1 at 13:37
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
Oct 1 at 12:41
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
Oct 1 at 14:41
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
Oct 1 at 14:50
Make sure your reference has a DOI and the question becomes (still relevant but mostly) moot.
– E.P.
Oct 1 at 17:10
1
@E.P.: How does it become moot?
– einpoklum
Oct 1 at 17:16