For anyone who's wondered how (or even whether
) to cite blogs in formal academic medical papers, the National Library of Medicine / National Institutes of Health now provides a style guide
. They used Kidney Notes as one of the examples
. I'm honored.
KidneyNotes.com [blog on the Internet]. New York: KidneyNotes. c2006 - [cited 2007 May 16]. Available from: http://www.kidneynotes.com/.
Do I understand correctly that you do not refer to an article, but just to the weblog that features the article?
If so, I think it is a shame. If you refer to the article the reader can find the information much easier.
You have arrived!
Jan: Many others have voiced the same complaint, e.g. at BoingBoing and elsewhere. I did a short roundup post including a link to someone else's unofficial but much more useful format.
Scott and Jan, inspired by the suggestions here and in your roundup post, I suggest the real categorization of content should reflect the fact that the major difference in content on the web is static vs, dynamic.
Citing blogs and wikis can be seen as just a special case of a database query, since that's what dynamic content really is.
I would appreciate your opinions on my discussion of the issue here.
Post a Comment