tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1275149608391671670.post2831117787343568727..comments2023-09-28T06:13:40.704-04:00Comments on SAS and R: Citing R or SASKen Kleinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09525118721291529157noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1275149608391671670.post-80652986490815711522019-06-20T10:38:55.551-04:002019-06-20T10:38:55.551-04:00I think it would be helpful to those using citatio...I think it would be helpful to those using citation programmes such as Mendeley if there was some way we could easily import the information there. I want to cite R and the different packages but I have been using Mendeley for all my references and I'm unsure how to get the citations into the word doc without messing with my citations. Also, none of the papers I'm reading do this properly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1275149608391671670.post-23668446868869612052012-07-12T09:00:44.054-04:002012-07-12T09:00:44.054-04:00Just read this interesting article on how R is try...Just read this interesting article on how R is trying to make it easier to cite authors of R packages: http://journal.r-project.org/archive/2012-1/RJournal_2012-1_Hornik~et~al.pdfRick Wicklinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13919716786757842151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1275149608391671670.post-38453320844180041272012-07-03T14:00:51.099-04:002012-07-03T14:00:51.099-04:00That's what I trying to get at when I mentione...That's what I trying to get at when I mentioned "informing the interpretation"; thanks for elaborating!<br /><br />I think the reasons to cite in general are to give credit to others for their work and to provide a sufficient roadmap to those who follow. It's a funny thing deciding what methods need citing, whether they be software or analytic methods, or physical tools, though. You rarely see a citation to Gosset, Kruskal and Wallis, or Fisher, for example. The implicit assumption is that "everyone knows" what those things mean, and that credit need not accrue any longer. I think this is somewhat wrongheaded, at least from the perspective of credit. <br /><br />On the other hand, citations for methods walk a fine line between enough detail to communicate what was done and appropriate brevity. For example, I use mixed models a lot in my applied work. Whenever possible, I use numerical approximations to the likelihood, and if that's not possible, I use penalized quasi-likelihood. The difference matters, often, and there are nice citations to the methods available. But I don't recall ever deciding that this level of detail merited inclusion in an applied manuscript. Similarly, unless a paper is directly related to anthropometry, you won't see the manufacturer of a scale noted. I think it's just that the information is seen as of too little interest to too few people.Ken Kleinmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09525118721291529157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1275149608391671670.post-52260377209946426882012-07-03T13:14:10.642-04:002012-07-03T13:14:10.642-04:00Another reason to cite the software is to implicit...Another reason to cite the software is to implicitly document the algorithm used to compute the statistics. For example, if you cite the function/procedure and the software release, someone look up the documentation to conclude "Ah-ha! Those parameter estimates were computed by using a quasi-likelihood and a reference parameterization."<br /><br />There is a tendency to cite relatively new technology but not established software. That's how software moves into the mainstream. I remember reading papers in the 80s and 90s that explicitly said "Typeset using LaTeX" and referenced Knuth and/or Lamport. Similarly, I've read older papers that reference Tcl/Tk, Perl, and even emacs :-) <br /><br />Interestingly, I think Mathematica will always get a lot of references because people like to be able to skip the steps in a complicated derivation by saying, "we used Mathematica[CITATION] to apply the XYZ transformation, change variables, and simplify. The result is...."Rick Wicklinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13919716786757842151noreply@blogger.com