citation issues

[nickreich]

• [x] Aastveit et al needs a "journal" name, maybe just "Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers"
• [x] stackr paper capitalizes "Stackr" when it should be lowercase and should have a date accessed and/or package version.
• [x] CDC. 2023. needs a date accessed.
• [x] stacks package citation doesn't include all the info (package version, etc...) here
• [x] "hubverse. 2022." change "hubverse" author to "Consortium of Infectious Disease Modeling Hubs", change year to 2024. add date accessed.
• [x] distfromq citation: needs version number and accessed date.

[lshandross]

For the hubverse citation, I last accessed the page before the documentation was updated, so it was the 2022 version. In light of this, it's okay to leave the year as is, correct?

[lshandross]

@nickreich I updated the citations based on your comments, though I only included package versions and not access dates. Let me know what you think of the changes and my question above.

[nickreich]

Curating a clean bibliography is painstaking and hard and takes a lot of time!

In the absence of clear and specific guidelines from the journal (which may exist), the guidelines I try to follow are:

• provide an official DOI link if available
• if an official DOI link doesn't exist, don't provide a URL for a journal article
• if a url is needed to uniquely identify a source from a non-journal website or code/data repo, the providing an access date is important because it shows when the source was available from that site (in future years, it may not be available there)
• in general, try to provide the minimal set of information that uniquely identifies the source

Given those guidelines, I still have some suggestions/edits to the bibliography:

• [x] a number of sources are missing access dates when the page is not a DOI or unique journal article
• [x] a number of journal article sources have a "Publisher" field which can be removed, and an extra URL (in addition to a DOI) that should also be removed
• [x] ISSN, _eprint, PMID and PMCID fields should be removed
• [x] sources that are code/data repo URLs should have an access date, IMO.
• [x] I think for documentation sites, if they are still active, you should list a more recent date, because this field acts as a signal to future readers that "this source was available in May 2024 when we submitted the article". if the source no longer exists at that page or in the form that you want to cite, then you should leave the original access date
• [x] in a few places "PLoS Computational Biology" is listed. "PLoS" should be "PLOS".

[lshandross]

Working on getting these changes incorporated and I have two remaining questions:

• What about articles that say the citation should include the provided URL?
• The CDC website on Flusight was last updated in 2023 according to the note on the website. Should I list this as the year, or go with 2024 since it's still available?

[nickreich]

Can you be more specific about the first question? What do you mean that the articles "say the citation should include the URL"?

The "accessed on" date should be today. You could add a "updated date" or "publication date" to record the 2023 date, but I think it's not necessary.

[lshandross]

The Astveit paper's website has something at the top that says "Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/185588"

To clarify, for documentation sites it should be the accessed on date that is today, not the year published (if known), to show that the source is still available?

[nickreich]

If they tell you to use that link, then I say do it!

To clarify, for documentation sites it should be the accessed on date that is today, not the year published (if known), to show that the source is still available?

Yes, that is how I would approach it.