These days journal articles (and book chapters) have a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) attached them. I include such DOIs in my bibliographies and citations. For some reason copy-editors at academic publishers (and their philosophical editors-enablers) still insist on removing DOIs and Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) from bibliographies and footnotes. I do not get this. A lot of research is now found and read online. Why not tell people where to find the material electronically? Moreover, given that my references are about my sources, shouldn't my readers now where I found them? (I am not saying a DOI/URL ought to suffice, although that has tempted me, too.) Also, I thought presses made money from electronic downloads, so why discourage the practice in one's citations?
Recent Comments