We have recently released an updated version of the Chicago styles (in Sente 5.6.5). There is one aspect of these new styles that I believe we have handled correctly, but which I expect users to dislike; namely the handling of DOIs in bibliography entries. I am hoping to generate some feedback from some users of the Chicago styles.
The Chicago Manual of Style (15th Edition) (CMOS) only mentions DOIs in two sections:
- Section 17.14 talks at a high level about how the University of Chicago Press considers DOI "promising" as a tool for easily identifying articles.
- Section 17.181 (under the heading of Electronic Journals) says: "If there is a digital object identifier (DOI) for the source (see 17.14), include it in place of page numbers or other locators." (Emphasis added.)
This means that a proper Chicago 15 bibliography entry for a journal article with a DOI would include journal name, volume number plus DOI -- no page numbers. This means that instead of this:
Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green. "Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence From a Large-Scale Field Experiment." American Political Science Review 102 (2008): 33-48.
the new version of Chicago 15 NB (Notes + Bibliography) produces this:
Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green. "Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence From a Large-Scale Field Experiment." American Political Science Review 102 (2008): doi:10.1017/S000305540808009X.
This rule applies to all three of the Chicago styles.
According to the CMOS, there is no way to include both page numbers and a DOI; the only supported options are to present either one or the other.
(By the way, one might argue that because 17.181 falls under the heading of Electronic Journals, this rule would not apply to articles that also appear in print journals. But in the first paragraph of 17.181, the authors seem to indicate that their discussion of page numbers below covers journals that have a print version as well as on-line versions.)
Now, DOIs are very important for Sente. They are by far the best identifier for uniquely identifying a reference, so we want to have them in the reference whenever possible. But, according to CMOS, when we have them we should not include page numbers in the bibliography entries.
Personally, I think that omitting page numbers in favor of a DOI is a bad design decision, and I would like to see the format modified to support the inclusion of both items, but that is not our decision to make.
The best option I see is to change the logic of the Chicago format to favor page numbers, but to include the DOI if the reference does not have page numbers. This would mean that most references would have page numbers in the bibliography rather than a DOI (which is certainly a loss), but in cases where the user was working from a PDF where the page numbers are meaningless (e.g., "1-6") the DOI would be used instead. This contradicts the literal interpretation of the CMOS, but it would produce legal output.
Before I make such a change to our built-in Chicago formats, I would like to get some feedback from anyone who regularly uses these styles. Would you prefer that the styles work the way they do now (i.e., following the letter of the law), or would you prefer us to change them along the lines of my proposal? Or do you have another idea about how this issue should be handled?
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your informative post. I haven't seen the DOI used much at all in the presses and journals that use Chicago, and I only learned of it when I began using Sente.
Having worked for an academic press, copyedited for them, and written peer-reviewed articles, I think it makes sense to stick to the page numbers. Researchers will need them when they, for example, request articles that their libraries don't have through interlibrary loan.
Perhaps you can create two versions of the Chicago Style.
Many thanks,
Andrew