search

forc-db / Global_Productivity

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
2 stars 0 forks source link

references in Table 1 #62

Closed teixeirak closed 4 years ago

teixeirak commented 4 years ago

It seems that if we keep the references in Table 1, we should try to be reasonably comprehensive in what's cited. Let's review this. I think we have some references cited in the text related to the hypotheses that are not cited in the table, and there are probably additional refs out there.

teixeirak commented 4 years ago

It would be helpful if we could insert references in the footnote without necessarily inserting them elsewhere in the text, but figuring out how to do that seems complicated/ not worth it.

beckybanbury commented 4 years ago

@teixeirak Yes, I'm not sure how you would actually cite within the footnotes; I think Ian found a way to include references in the reference list not cited in the text, so if we need to do that I can follow up with him.

beckybanbury commented 4 years ago

Where are we at with this? Are there any references I need to check or add?

teixeirak commented 4 years ago

We can start by checking references in the text. I think that we have quite a number there that don't show up in this table. But, we'll need to be careful with conflicting versions. I'm working on the manuscript text at the moment.

An easier alternative would be to just drop references from this table. I like having the references, but if its too much work to make a more comprehensive list, we could drop.

teixeirak commented 4 years ago

We don't necessarily need/ want to include all of the citations in Table 1 footnotes in the text. On other .Rmd docs, I've successfully added citations at the end using "nocite" in the doc heading. I tried this for this document in the latest commit:

nocite: | @chu_does_2016

It did not work (Chu 2016 doesn't show up in references list as expected). I'm not sure why--perhaps it doesn't work with the natbib citation package? Here's a screenshot showing a doc where it is working.

image
teixeirak commented 4 years ago

@beckybanbury, I'm actually wondering if we should just drop the references from this table? We already cite all references that I know offhand in the text, so short the table doesn't add a whole lot unless we look for additional references. I feel like it would take at least an hour to get it up to speed.

beckybanbury commented 4 years ago

That's okay with me - I think we've been pretty comprehensive in the text so I don't feel like it adds too much to have it in the table.

teixeirak commented 4 years ago

Okay, they're gone! I'm starting the submission process now.