I heard a guy on the radio the other day preaching about kids and tv, and one of the first things he said was "A study done in the 1980's showed..." and I was like
dafuq?
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Also EndNote must die
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
<clicks link>The DOI does not exist, please reenter the URL, (the number of times this has happened suggests your idea is... Suboptimal
-
Add a title in and you're set. Year is for redundancy. Authors, place of publication, publisher, all the excess details are just...not useful any more imo
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
As a health writer I second this! I'm all for simplifying and modernizing our referencing norms.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I respectfully disagree. A quick check of the reference list for the journal, title & full author list gives a preliminary gauge of the cited study's quality & how on target it is with the facts cited & the main topic of the paper being read, before pulling up the full article.
-
Dunno, I try not to judge studies based on where they're published or who wrote them
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Title can give an idea of wether I should go and look up that paper
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes! Omg yes! And the fact they all have to be laid out a specific way. I waste so much time tidying the reference sections!
-
So much yes. It's all a massive waste of time, who needs the third author to find a paper any more?
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.