bell notificationshomepageloginNewPostedit profile

Topic : Order of references Suppose I have the following references to literature: Miller, H. (1999): … Referred to as: Miller (1999) Miller, F., & Smith, - selfpublishingguru.com

10.01% popularity

Suppose I have the following references to literature:

Miller, H. (1999): … Referred to as: Miller
(1999)
Miller, F., & Smith, J. (2002): … Referred to as: Miller
& Smith (2002)
Miller, A., & Smith, J. (2003): … Referred to as: Miller
& Smith (2003)
Miller, B., Smith, J., & Jones, K. (2001): … Referred to as: Miller
et al. (2001)
Miller, B., Jones, K., & Smith, J. (2004): … Referred to as: Miller
et al. (2004)

How to sort those entries?

“Logic” (?) says to first use

Miller, A., & Smith, J. (2003): … Referred to as: Miller & Smith
(2003)

because all authors are “Millers” but Arthur’s given name begins with the first letter of the alphabet.

Miller, B., Jones, K., & Smith, J. (2004): … Referred to as: Miller
et al. (2004)

would follow, because “B” comes after “A” and “Jones” before “Smith”,

Miller, B., Smith, J., & Jones, K. (2001): … Referred to as: Miller
et al. (2001)
Miller, F., & Smith, J. (2002): … Referred to as: Miller & Smith
(2002)

and

Miller, H. (1999): … Referred to as: Miller (1999)

would follow.

On the other hand, practically would sort as follows:

Miller, H. (1999): … Referred to as: Miller (1999)

because this is a “one author reference”.

Miller, F., & Smith, J. (2002): … Referred to as: Miller & Smith
(2002)

Before

Miller, A., & Smith, J. (2003): … Referred to as: Miller & Smith
(2003)

Because these are two-author references and “Miller & Smith (2002)” is chronologically before “Miller & Smith (2003)”. From the reference “Miller & Smith” the given names are not known to the reader (before looking in the references), thus sorting after the known year would make sense. Therefore also

Miller, B., Smith, J., & Jones, K. (2001): … Referred to as: Miller
et al. (2001)

would go before

Miller, B., Jones, K., & Smith, J. (2004): … Referred to as: Miller
et al. (2004)

Which sorting order is “better”/more common? Or is there another sort of ordering which makes more sense?!

There is no style guide, required format, standard or something like that for the planned publication.

Load Full (1)

Login to follow topic

More posts by @Gail2416123

Login to post a comment!

1 Comments

Sorted by latest first Latest Oldest Best

10% popularity

You haven't mentioned the style guide you're following; different guides have different rules.

For Turabian / Chicago Style, the rules applicable are:

A single-author entry precedes a multiauthor entry beginning with the
same name.

and

Successive entries by two or more authors in which only the first
author’s name is the same are alphabetized according to the coauthors’
last names (regardless of how many coauthors there are).

These rules order your list; since every entry has a different set of authors, chronology doesn't come into it. The order you want (if you are following Chicago style) is:

Miller, H. (1999): … Referred to as: Miller (1999)
Miller, A., & Smith, J. (2003): … Referred to as: Miller & Smith (2003)
Miller, B., Jones, K., & Smith, J. (2004): … Referred to as: Miller et al. (2004)
Miller, B., Smith, J., & Jones, K. (2001): … Referred to as: Miller et al. (2001)
Miller, F., & Smith, J. (2002): … Referred to as: Miller & Smith (2002)

Load Full (0)

Back to top