19
$\begingroup$

The ability to export a citation would make it easier for an author to cite a question or answer. It would also increase the percieved legitimacy (to editors and authors) of citing a stats.SE question or answer.

Here is an example from the math.SE implementation of this feature:

enter image description here

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ (+1) That really looks like an awesome feature! (I should note that you will need to have an account on CV in order to get formatted references.) $\endgroup$
    – chl
    Commented Mar 13, 2012 at 20:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That's really nice. Would there be a way of implementing it on other sites also? $\endgroup$
    – celenius
    Commented Mar 15, 2012 at 0:03
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What about encouraging (by example) to reference articles using CiteULike. The link points to an example reference, if you scroll to export records, you will be able to export the citation into different formats. Citations like this will help readers of CV with their research and also increase the legitimacy of answers. The only problem with this method is that it increases the distance between the actual article referred to (when available online) and the answer. $\endgroup$
    – Andrew
    Commented Apr 9, 2012 at 21:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Andrew that is a good idea, but the goal here is to enable citations to be exported for answers (and questions) on this site, not from the primary literature. $\endgroup$
    – David LeBauer
    Commented Apr 11, 2012 at 20:53
  • $\begingroup$ I see your point now @David - never thought people cited these articles directly (and hence never recognised the screenshot). What I suggested / am looking for actually exists in another question in meta. $\endgroup$
    – Andrew
    Commented Apr 12, 2012 at 12:39
  • $\begingroup$ For what I know, the review process in math community is different from that in statistics. My understanding is that every party knows all others' identities (authors, editors, reviewers), and you see the acknowledgement of who reviewed a particular paper along with the authors' names. It might be OK for mathematicians to consider a math.SE post as peer reviewed if there indeed were other mathematicians who looked at it and OK'ed it. In the end, it may suffice to have an arXiv paper to win the Fields Medal (TBC) $\endgroup$
    – StasK
    Commented Apr 13, 2012 at 16:30
  • $\begingroup$ (...continued) Statisticians, on the other hand, tend to rely on blind review. Some problems may have different valid answers (frequentist or Bayesian? model heteroskedasticity or utilize methods robust to it?). How strong an endorsement is that CV provides in this culture is not entirely clear. I like the cute functionality of what math.SE does, and I totally don't mind having it, but I am not sure it will eventually become super-impactful on CV. $\endgroup$
    – StasK
    Commented Apr 13, 2012 at 16:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @StasK if the an answer to CV helps guide an analysis, but has not been previously published, and the choice is either to cite the CV answer or to not cite any source (thereby implying that the idea is original to the manuscript), then it would be preferable to cite the CV answer. Perhaps this is not the current status-quo, but I think that it would be helpful to support moving in that direction. $\endgroup$
    – David LeBauer
    Commented Apr 16, 2012 at 15:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @David, I see your point. But if I as an editor would see a reference like [23] CrossValidated user David (2012), "Support for bibtex / ams citation exports from stats.SE Q/A", meta.stats.stackexchange.com/q/1082 -- I would likely ask the author(s) to rectify it, even though it does contain a sort-of-permanent URL. As an editor, I would certainly prefer a real name (and so would you if you were in an academic world and welcome every evidence of your "ACADEMIC IMPACT") -- should we then oblige everybody to provide their real names? Some people are paranoid about never doing that online. $\endgroup$
    – StasK
    Commented Apr 16, 2012 at 18:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @StasK from the perspective of the editor / audience, I see how the ambiguity could cause concern, since the reference would not be to a specific person. If a person uses a real name, the reference could be to "personal communication" but that would not give any credit to the site for facilitating the communication. From the perspective of the CV user being cited, it would be up to them to use a real name to get credit. I am not sure what the best solution is, but I am inclined to give credit when possible. Specific uses of the feature can be negotiated between author and editor as required. $\endgroup$
    – David LeBauer
    Commented Apr 16, 2012 at 23:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ when are we going to get this? [this feature request was posted on Mar 13!!!] $\endgroup$
    – user603
    Commented Nov 20, 2012 at 9:08

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

This feature now exists with the "cite" link underneath each question. (Just to close this question.)

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ But note that in the case of multiple contributors to a single post this cite button only adds one of the contributor names in the citation (the first to create the post). $\endgroup$
    – Sextus Empiricus
    Commented Feb 7, 2020 at 13:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .