Q. Should a Russian journal title appearing in an English-language bibliography be Latinized? Or should both the Russian and
transliterated versions of the journal’s title be listed? Is it correct to transliterate names of journals?
A. This is a matter of editorial judgment rather than correctness. Factors in making the decision include whether your expected
readers are able to read untransliterated Russian, whether special characters can be produced (or typeset), whether the preparer
knows how to transliterate correctly, and whether the publisher (if the document is going to be published) has a policy about
transliteration.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Dear Chicago, what verb tense do you recommend for the literature review section of a scholarly article? APA insists on the
past tense, arguing that any work included in a literature review was obviously published in the past. People writing about
English literature, on the other hand, discuss works in the present tense because readers always experience the book in the
present. I’m editing a Canadian public policy journal, and the author uses the present tense to discuss
works published ten or fifteen years ago. Should I change these tenses to the present perfect? The journal has no in-house
rule on this.
A. Since the use of the present tense in literature reviews is widely accepted, and since any decision about where to cut off
“past” from “present” literature would
have to be arbitrary, using the present tense for everything is a fine option. You shouldn’t worry about
using it if a journal doesn’t express a preference.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hi, there! In a bibliography or reference list, Chicago recommends inverting only the first author’s
name and not subsequent author names. What’s the reason for this? Why not invert all author names? I
trust in Chicago’s expertise, but I would like to know why, because I often have to defend my copyediting
decisions.
A. Because it’s so darned hard to read names backward. You might rather ask the opposite question: why
on earth would anyone reverse the names? The first author’s name is reversed to facilitate alphabetizing,
but there’s no reason to tangle up the rest.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How should one style the titles of blogs? Should they be headline capitalized? In quotation marks? Italicized? Some combination of these? Thank you.
A. Chicago uses italic type. Here’s an example (where “Blog” happens to be part of the title):
In a comment posted to The Becker-Posner Blog on March 6, 2006, Peter Pearson noted . . .
You can find examples of Chicago citation styles in our Chicago-Style Citation Quick Guide.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I accessed a website regularly during the course of my research and noted the dates of that access. Today, as I am finalizing
the notes and bibliography, I find that the website was removed! Thus, the link is no longer good or active. Is there a way
you’d like to see this handled?
A. All you can do is note that you accessed it on a certain date. You’re all set.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have a number of federal government publications to cite in endnotes, and it seems I have more information about the publication
than I know where to put. For example, is it better to cite the authors listed or the publishing government agency as the
author? If I list the specific individuals, should I list the agency in the publication information, i.e., “(Washington,
DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1985)”? And if the agency is best listed under publication
information, which level of the agency is best to cite? For example, one document was published by the Department of HHS,
Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, Division of Vital Statistics.
(These are the hierarchy levels.) Finally, if publication numbers are available for these documents, should I include them?
If so, where? After the title, and before publication information? Thanks in advance for your help.
A. Even as our taxpaying hearts swell with pride, it is easy to be overwhelmed by the amount of information presented by a single
source like this. The most important guideline in deciding what to include is that you want a reader to be able to understand
the reference well enough to find the source for herself. If an author’s name is given, start the citation
with that. If not, let the department title stand in for the author. (Use the one at the top of the hierarchy. Sometimes this
will mean repeating the department name in the publication information.) Publication numbers are extremely helpful; sometimes
they can take a reader directly to the complete online text when typed into a search engine. Put the number where it makes
sense, usually right before the publication information.
If there are many such references in your document and they all must be cited in full, consider using a list of abbreviations
in order to shorten them. In the example above, DVS could be used to stand for the Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, Division of Vital Statistics.
Finally, there are many university websites that give guidelines for citing government publications (type “citing
government publications” into your search engine). You might also look at The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, published by the Harvard Law Review Association.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I would very much like to have software that would automatically format text for Chicago style. Does such a thing exist?
Where would I find it? Thank you.
A. Readers have mentioned to us a handful of programs—including EndNote, RefWorks, and Zotero—that
they say can be helpful in formatting notes and bibliographies in CMOS style. Unfortunately, a problem we frequently encounter in manuscripts is the accidental use of notes style for bibliographies
and vice versa. Even though everything looks perfect and consistent on the surface, we have to return the work to the author
for repairs. So be careful what you wish for, and be sure to check your work carefully.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Perhaps the most important quote for the paper I am writing comes from the footnote of something someone wrote in a scholarly
journal. Is there a particular way I should have to endnote this since the quote comes from a footnote?
A. Yes. In addition to the page number, give the note number: 256n4.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. A student of mine has quoted two different popular periodical articles by the same author, written in the same year. We are
stumped as to how the in-text citation and the reference list entry should look. It seems simple with books (e.g., 2009a,
2009b). But with periodicals, date information beyond the year is given in the works cited list, right? Any suggestions?
A. The trouble is, journals use various incompatible means for dating individual issues, whether by month, season, or number,
so the order of publication is not always apparent. For this reason, it’s best to disregard information
other than the year in styling author-date citations. The simple method you use for books works best for journals as well:
order the titles alphabetically and assign a letter to the year.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am reviewing musicological literature for my next book. I found the following in one source: “Systematic-objective
repetition of a peculiar sonic construct on appropriate instruments as well as in proper contexts loops the targeted mind/s
in a revolving grove.” My experience and training have me reasonably certain the author meant groove and not grove, and that in citing, I ought to follow grove with [sic] and a note suggesting the likelihood of groove. On the other hand, the author, by slim chance (and in search of a novel metaphor), might really have his minds looping in
groves. What does CMOS suggest?
A. You are the best one to judge, so I would advise you to go with your inclination to add [sic] and suggest that groove might have been meant. Or simply write “[groove?]” instead of [sic ].
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]