Go USA spelling I think (authorize, mobilize) since the editors are US based. I’ve been trying to change ‘s’ to ‘z’ when I see UK spellings. Will comb for it tomorrow.
@melancon, I see your comment to use only citep commands. How do I only use citep when I need to do a year-only parenthetical?
For example:
Dengah (2018) studies online gaming using an offline social mapping method.
Afaik, the citet command allows me to do the in-text citation, which is the correct format for the American Sociological Association.
Please correct me if there is a better way to do this!
1 Like
Yes, yes. \citet is appropriate in these cases.
1 Like
I am currently missing these reviewer suggested papers from the SSN Related Literature section:
Gloor and Diesner (2014)
Thovex, Trichet, and LeGrand (2014)
^I know we can’t get ahold of this, but how do we account for that?
Allen, J., & Frisch, A. (1982). What’s in a semantic network? Paper presented at the 20th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Hartley, R., & Barnden, J. (1997). Semantic networks: visualizations of knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1(5), 169-175.
Gravlee, Johnson, and McCarty
It’s OK to leave these out if we’ve explicitly decided to do so, but I want to ensure this was intentional.
@melancon @markomanka @alberto
Found this paper titled “Semantic Social Network Analysis”
And this one (co-authored by Gloor, the author of the “Semantic Social Network Analysis” entry that we can’t get access to above). Amusingly I also have no access to this one, but the abstract seems relevant.
Measuring creative performance of teams through dynamic semantic social network analysis
Author
Zhang, Xue
Gloor, Peter A.
Grippa, Francesca
Publisher Details
Inderscience Publishers
Publication Date
2013
Management information systems
Computer engineering
Citation
International Journal Of Organisational Design And Engineering Volume 3 Issue 2 Page 165
Abstract
In this project we compare communication structure and content exchanged by members of creative, interdisciplinary teams of medical researchers, physicians, patients and caretakers with their creative output. We find that longitudinal social networking patterns and word usage predict creative performance. We collected the e-mail archives of 60 members of a community of researchers working on 12 projects improving various aspects of the daily lives of patients with Crohn’s disease. Our results indicate that more creative projects show a decrease in group density, while more actors are involved, and more e-mails are exchanged, suggesting that a more successful project attracts more attention from many different people. We also found that members of more creative projects use more outspoken language, which gets more focused over time.
Given that multiple reviewers ask that we review the entries that we can’t get access to, I think we need to account for it in some way. I think given that across all of our institutions we can’t get ahold of it, it’s not terrible to mention in the letter to reviewers that we couldn’t get access. I think it’s better than seeming to ignore their suggestions. Thoughts?
To do:
-
Fix formatting and indentation (there is some odd spacing and non-indentation throughout the doc). ASA also asks that it be double spaced, including references.
-
The journal asks for acknowledgements at the beginning of the doc, so I’ve moved it up. The abstract needs to be on a separate page as per the ASA guidelines.
-
We need to include our email addresses as well as our institutional affiliations. Please add.
-
I’d like to link to our ethnographic report from Open Care – where is it hosted/published, if anywhere?
-
Our citation style is still incorrect. We need to format according to the ASA style guide: http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/documents/teaching/pdfs/Quick_Tips_for_ASA_Style.pdf
For example, currently our in-text citations are separated with commas, not semicolons.
We do: (Gloor 2014, Cottica 2011, Gabrys 2014)
It needs to be: (Gloor 2014; Cottica 2011; Gabrys 2014).
Our bibliography is also misformatted as the full surnames are not included and the dates are in the wrong location, among other things.
Is there any way to fix this automatically in Overleaf? I personally use Zotero which auto-formats, so this is out of my wheelhouse. I know it’s annoying, but it’s important to get it right if we want this thing accepted.
I’ve been looking at it, and what we want is the chicago style format – so biblatex style name is chicago-authordate
I spent today doing final edits. The above are the issues I see as remaining. Otherwise, I feel good about where we are and ready to submit once we resolve them. As of right now we are at 5,994 words, so we are ok there.
I’m going to assign the above so we get it done.
I took the liberty of adding email addresses, so please check that yours is correct. I’ve also gone over our letter to the reviewers, but it could definitely use a double-check from everyone before submission. And to be safe, it needs to be formatted so that each reviewer could in theory get only the responses to their own comments.
@Alberto, can you handle the citation style fix and move the abstract to its own page? And link me to OC ethno report?
@melancon, if you could take a look at formatting throughout and make sure it is consistent, that would be excellent. Also if you could respond to the above comment about ‘missing’ papers that would be great! I remember you mentioning it, but I can’t find the location.
@markomanka , we’ve lost you a bit 
an update on how you’re feeling about the paper would be excellent.
Home stretch, let’s finish strong!
@amelia, I am afraid I don’t understand any of what you want me to do. Maybe move onto the chat?
(Except for the letter part. That’s clear, and fixed now).
I had contacted Legrand to get a copy of the paper, which she promised but never delivered. To be honest, in my opinion, the paper is anecdotical (Google Scholar reports a single citation for it). I didn’t see anything that these guys published that’s been cited but a dozen times. Google Scholar repots 3 citations for the Gloor and Disner paper.
I know the authors of the pdf you attached. The paper is not that relevant as the authors focus on the implementation aspects of SNA (using RDF).
Again, the 2013 Gloor paper is not that visible (13 citations) and I believe it had no impact really. I fear we are facing the situation where a reviewer is “making justice for himself” and requesting citations to his own work (or his colleagues’).
–
That paper builds upon Sowa’s conceptual graph approach (as well as Woods). We could add it right where we cite Woods, if we need to. I am not sure of the added value – considering the word count constraint, I am tempted to just drop it.
–
Again, this is a conceptual graph paper (Sowa). We cannot cite the whole literature, I am tempted to leave this one aside. Maybe should we add a paragraph in our letter saying we preferred citing Sowa to listing a number of papers that built upon his approach?
Ok then. I personally use citep in all cases, but I’m fine with using citet.
Maybe use the asa package? https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~paciorek/computingTips/References_use_Bibtex.html
–
I changed bibliography style to chicago (line 384). The comma versus semi-colon is something LaTeX should manage automatically. How bad is it to submit the manuscript as is?
In-text citation format is managed by the \setcitestyle command in line 27. I just changed the citesep parameter to semicolon. This should fix it.
\setcitestyle{authoryear,open={(},aysep={},close={)},citesep={;}}
Great, I had not located this one …
Thanks for the reply. Will you add a paragraph in the letter to that effect?
Guys, the bibliography is still incorrect. Compare what we have to the ASA style guide. The parentheticals are the same as Chicago style but the bibliography is different.
This is the format it needs to take:
Bursik, Robert J., Jr. and Harold G. Grasmick. 1993. Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control. New York: Lexington Books.
Hagen, John and Ruth D. Peterson, eds. 1995. Crime and
Inequality. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Note the full first names and the non-parenthetical dates. I know it may feel trivial but I think it is important we get this right-- they are quite clear about it in the submission guidelines. When I submitted the our first paper I did these all by hand myself after converting to Word, and it took forever. It would be excellent if someone could see this through and check it against the style guide I sent. As I said above, I normally use Zotero which does this automatically, so it would be great if someone with experience in Latex could finish this out all the way.
I think I solved it. What I did is look this reference, and then, in line 329:
\bibliographystyle{authordate1}
Whee!! Apart from the strange bolding of the journal volume numbers, that looks excellent. Thank you!
Actually, it’s not exactly the same. Two differences: “&” instead of “and” and the comma before the name of the last author.
I just did. May I ask you @amelia of @alberto to review it? Also, I am unsure where is best to include this paragraph. For now, I inserted it just behind the opening paragraph on “related work”.
1 Like
Checked and edited ever so slightly. I think it looks great, thank you.
I think it’s time to submit. What does everyone else think? @melancon @alberto @markomanka