Right Use of ibidem and idem, once and for all

EndNote EndNote General
1

Hello, 

The way Endnote handles the use of ibidem (and and maybe idem if you configure the repeated field with this word) is incorrect. 

Many Journals only uses the Latin word ibidem in order to shorten the citation when it repeats identical information.

The problem is that, in reality, ibidem means «at the same place», which includes also the same page. Consequently,  ibidem (or ibid.) should only be used when the immediate precedent citation matches exactly the same information as well as the cited page (author, title, cited page). In other words, inserting a cited page reference after ibidem is a mistake.

In a formatted document, one should never read such a reference: Ibidem, p. 123. It should read instead: Ibidem. 

(Of course, inside Endnote, one should customize the identical citation with the same information, in order to let Endnote change the format, if at a later stage, a third citation is included in between).

If the citation that follows refers to the same author and same title but somewhere else in the book or the article (i.e. not the same cited page), then ibidem is not the right word and «Idem» should be used instead. 

Example:

if the first citation is : 
81. Farnsworth, Contracts, p. 34, (see footnote n° 2). 

and the immediate following citation refers to the same author, same title, AND same page, then the footnote 82 should be:

  1. Ibidem.

(with or without italic depending of the Journal).

If the first citation is : 
81. Farnsworth, Contracts, p. 34, (see footnote n° 2).

and the immediate following citation is the same author and title but a different cited page, then the footnote 82 should be

  1. Idem, p. 95.

(or id., p. 95)

The distinction between ibidem and idem is related to the signification of the Latin word. We cannot change the meaning of a word simply because a bibliography program has never made or understood the difference.

Endnote is not offering a correct handling of this distinction resulting in whether we us ibidem or idem, but not both of them only because there are no corresponding fields or option in the repeated citation windows.

The only way to correct this feature would be to duplicate the fields in the repeated window. 

If the Same Reference Repeats in consecutive Citations should have four options instead of three:

  1. Replace repeated data with … Insert field (here we’ll put whatever we liked as _idem, C_ited Pages (or any other field)

  2. Replace all repeated data with Ibidem.

  3. Omit repeated data

  4. Use short form

Same with the second option 

If the Same Source Repeats in Consecutive Citations

Awaiting comments of other scientific editors,  if you agree (or disagree) with the exact handling of Ibidem. 

 

Flavio

2

Sounds to me like you taking on the whole of the publishing industry and not just Endnote. 

3

I don’t believe so. It is not up to the whole of the publishing industry (as you say) to adapt themselves to Endnote but up to Endnote to adapt itself to the scientific editing community.

Now and as I stated, Endnote is only missing one more option in the repeated citation window.

The first field called “Replace repeated data with” is OK since you can add any text here. The text inserted here should be idem or id. with the field Cited Pages. However, if authors or Journals wish to only add ibidem, it’s up to them. 

Nevertheless, a second option (which does not exist yet) should take place immediately after the first one in conjunction with it. It should state something like " if all data including same Cited Page is repeated replace all with" and here one can add ibidem in a another field.

In other words, you can see the second actual option in this windows called “if the same Source repeats in Consecutive Citations” in somehow duplicated in the first option screen in order to manage both a consecutive exact citation (ibidem) and a partially identical citation (like author, title) but with the cited pages differing form the previous citation. Here the repeated citation would be also replace by another customized text i.e… Idem .

 

Is that making more sense to you ?

Flavio

4

I guess I am lucky to be in science where footnotes are rare and  I have never even heard of idem (that is what I meant). Perhaps the humanities users will have more to say about the requested modifications. 

5

The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., par. 16.47 (and I have no reason to believe that the 16th ed. handles the matter differently) states that ibidem (which is not italicized when used in notes) “takes the place of the name(s) of the author(s) or editor(s), the title of the work, and as much of the succeeding material as is identical” [my emphasis]. It is thus perfectly correct to have the following sequence:

Smith, Solving the Ibidem Problem, 380.

Ibid., 200-201.

Ibid.

Ibid., 350-51.

Idem (par. 16.49) means “the same author” and can be used when a title by the same author is cited successively in the same note; repetition of the author’s name, however, is preferable.

6

Speaking for another view from within the humanities, and echoing ma_roberge’s comment: Turabian’s “A Manual for Writers…” (8th ed.) recommends doing away with Idem completely, and using only “Ibid.” either alone or in conjunction with a page number if referring to same source, different location. Turabian also suggests doing away with “op. cit.” and “loc. cit.” and I imagine “viz.” (vidi liquam) has long gone the way of the dodo…

@ma_roberge wrote:

The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., par. 16.47 (and I have no reason to believe that the 16th ed. handles the matter differently) states that ibidem (which is not italicized when used in notes) “takes the place of the name(s) of the author(s) or editor(s), the title of the work, and as much of the succeeding material as is identical” [my emphasis]. It is thus perfectly correct to have the following sequence:

 

Smith, Solving the Ibidem Problem, 380.

Ibid., 200-201.

Ibid.

Ibid., 350-51.

 

Idem (par. 16.49) means “the same author” and can be used when a title by the same author is cited successively in the same note; repetition of the author’s name, however, is preferable.

7

Speaking for another view from within the humanities, and echoing ma_roberge’s comment: Turabian’s “A Manual for Writers…” (8th ed.) recommends doing away with Idem completely, and using only “Ibid.” either alone or in conjunction with a page number if referring to same source, different location. Turabian also suggests doing away with “op. cit.” and “loc. cit.” and I imagine “viz.” (vidi liquam) has long gone the way of the dodo…

8

(That would be in Turabian: 16.4.2)

9

The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed. (2017), published a few weeks ago, now discourages (par. 14.34) from using “ibid.” and instead favours shortened citations. Author, title, and page are used for the first reference in a publication with a full bibliography. Subsequent references use author and page, or author, title, and page when there is more than one work by a given author. A page reference is repeated even if it is the same as in the previous note.

I cannot say if the EndNote style sheets have been modified to reflect this new recommendation.

10

Since there isn’t a Chicago Manual of Style, 17th output style template on the Endnote download site, I assume not.  I think one may need to request it.  http://endnote.com/downloads/output-style-request

11

Leanne,

I have made a request at the URL you provided and posted a separate topic at http://community.thomsonreuters.com/t5/EndNote-Styles-Filters-and/Request-for-an-update-to-the-output-style-for-the-Chicago-Manual/m-p/136555#M13965