Common format for references

Question

While we are attempting to reposition this site to a professional level, should we encourage the use of a common format for quoting references apart from or in addition to those that are inlined? In particular when referencing a published paper from a journal?

Here's sample output from a cgi script I wrote a while back

Biesiekierski JR, Peters SL, Newnham ED, Rosella O, Muir JG, Gibson PR. No effects of gluten in patients with self-reported non-celiac gluten sensitivity after dietary reduction of fermentable, poorly absorbed, short-chain carbohydrates. Gastroenterology 2013 Aug;145(2):320-8.e1-3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.04.051. PubMed PMID: 23648697.

Answer 1

In my personal view on this I would say that requiring this format is going too far. Some answers might benefit from simpler references and simple links that will not fit into this scheme.

But this is a good idea nevertheless. In some aspects at least.

A reference should be meaningful, and should be meaningful in the future. Giving the year seems most important to evaluate at glance its relevance concerning up-to-dateness. Giving the title is important to make this reference re-searchable, if a link should go blind or change otherwise. These names are less important to find that article again, especially since not all journals seem to agree on how to format titles and christian names. If a direct link is provided, then a DOI and a on top of that is of course extra service but a bit redundant.

These reservations expressed: if we adopt this model informally, that is lead by example in using this or a variant, then this might serve as an example of the format of references expected, compared to a barren and primitive hyperlink. It would also better indicate future visitors the quality level of the content that is generally well received here.

Depending on our future scope I doubt that this is even really enforceable in all cases.

Most important would be to provide a link to an accepted, reliable source, ideally via a permalink, state title, year. Preferably liberate some content, especially if locked behind a paywall, that is not found in the openly accessible abstract. Some essential quotes should be strongly encouraged.

To exercise those points most important to me on your example:

No effects of gluten in patients with self-reported non-celiac gluten sensitivity after dietary reduction of fermentable, poorly absorbed, short-chain carbohydrate (2013):
Results: In all participants, gastrointestinal symptoms consistently and significantly improved during reduced FODMAP intake, but significantly worsened to a similar degree when their diets included gluten or whey protein. Gluten-specific effects were observed in only 8% of participants. There were no diet-specific changes in any biomarker. During the 3-day rechallenge, participants' symptoms increased by similar levels among groups. Gluten-specific gastrointestinal effects were not reproduced. An order effect was observed.
Conclusions: In a placebo-controlled, cross-over rechallenge study, we found no evidence of specific or dose-dependent effects of gluten in patients with NCGS placed diets low in FODMAPs. – – – –
[…] In conclusion, these consecutive double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over rechallenge studies showed no evidence of specific or dose-dependent effects of gluten in patients with NCGS placed on a low FODMAP diet. A high nocebo response was found regardless of known background dietary triggers being controlled and reproducibility of symptom induction to a specific protein was poor. These data suggest that NCGS, as currently defined, might not be a discrete entity or that this entity might be confounded by FODMAP restriction, and that, at least in this highly selected cohort, gluten might be not be a specific trigger of functional gut symptoms once dietary FODMAPs are reduced.

Answer 2

"The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."

^{Source: Douglas Adams, The More Than Complete Hitchhiker's Guide. The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. Chapter 1, p. 150.}

In my view, this is the most desirable citation format.

• When reading a post, references don't matter that much, hence they're in <sup>.
• I need them and might want to check on them later for specific claims, hence they are provided below the extract (endnotes aren't really handy because I'd have to check back and forth.
• Links might rot, hence you need to provide a definite "address" consisting out of author, name, publisher etc. This also provides the opportunity of quickly evaluating the trustworthiness of the reference without reading the whole paper.
• If possible, a link to a free version of the text could help users who are interested into the source.

As an example from a post of mine (yes, I'm shamelessly self-advertising my way of providing reference, because, obviously, I consider that to be best. Otherwise I'd not follow that way):

The proportion of patients judged to have experienced distress at the time of the AAGA increased with Michigan score (Figure 7.5): distress was most common when pain and paralysis were experienced together, with 17 of 22 patients reporting distress (77%).

^{Source: 5th National Audit Project of The Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland: Accidental Awareness during General Anaesthesia in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Report and findings of the 5th National Audit Project, Chapter 7, p. 51. 2014}

So, that's it. It's easy to read, not blocking the important bits and helping anyone backtrack the source even if the link disappears sometime in the future.