Understanding The Vancouver And The Harvard Referencing Systems

1
Understanding The Vancouver And The Harvard
Referencing Systems

• AJAI R. SINGH
• M.D.
• EDITOR, MENS SANA MONOGRAPHS
• http//www.msmonographs.org
• PSYCHIATRIST
• ADITI HOSPITAL, MULUND, MUMBAI

2
1. Why The Name Vancouver?

• 1968 Seattle. Eminent nephrologist Belding
  Scribners secretary Augusta Litwer, grew tired
  of retyping his papers.
• Why retype?
• The references format had to be changed when a
  paper rejected by one journal had to be submitted
  to another journal with different requirements.

3
2. Why The Name Vancouver?

• The chief medical librarian at the University of
  Washington Medical School, Gerald G Oppenheimer,
  advised Litwer to write to the editors of AIM,
  JAMA, and NEJM asking them why they could not
  have the same format for references?

4
3.Why The Name Vancouver?

• 1968-69 Those editors and others met at the
  American Federation for Clinical Research meeting
  in Atlantic City.
• 1970 They finally agreed to use the formats of
  Index Medicus specified by the National Library
  of Medicine (NLM). Eighteen journals signed on to
  this agreement.

5
4. Why The Name Vancouver?

• Early 1970s John F. Murray, then editor of
  American Review of Respiratory Disease, was
  attending a meeting of editors at NLM.
• He raised the question why journals could not
  agree on standards for manuscripts, particularly
  formats for bibliographic references.
• Apparently, he was not aware of the Atlantic
  City agreement.

6
5. Why The Name Vancouver?

• May 1976 AIM Editor Edward J. Huth and
  British Medical Journal Editor Stephen Lock met
  at the third general assembly of the European
  Life Science Editors (now European Association of
  Science Editors) and discussed the possibility of
  an international agreement on reference formats.

7
6. Why The Name Vancouver?

• 1978 John Murray, Therese Southgate of JAMA, and
  Huth organized a meeting of editors. Lock
  suggested a neutral ground for developing an
  international, trans-Atlantic agreement.
• So in 1978 the group met in Vancouver, British
  Columbia.

8
7. Why The Name Vancouver?

• The group called itself the International
  Steering Committee, a name that was later changed
  to the International Committee of Medical Journal
  Editors (ICMJE).
• Because of its original meeting place, however,
  the ICMJE has often been called the Vancouver
  group.

9
8. Why The Name Vancouver?

• The main topic at the 1978 meeting was formats
  for references, a topic that had been contentious
  for years.
• Huth urged adopting the American National
  Standards Institute (ANSI) standard.
• Several other editors disagreed.
• Eventually, the group decided that NLM would
  define the formats for references.

10
9.Why The Name Vancouver?

• NLM based its recommended formats on the ANSI
  standard, which itself was based on
  Anglo-American cataloging rules, providing a
  truly trans-Atlantic basis.
• A compromise was that cooperating journals would
  not be obliged to use the format of the submitted
  paper in their published articles.

11
10.Why The Name Vancouver?

• What were the earlier controversies in the ICMJE?
• Earlier controversies related to the URM involved
  surprisingly heated arguments on reference
  formats (for example, the use of the Harvard
  system of citing references or the numerical
  system)
• And on other style issues, such as units of
  measure and abbreviations.

12
Shift Of Focus

• Mid1980s The ICMJE shifted focus to ethical
  issues facing authors and editors like
• Listing people as authors when work was done by
  others,
• Duplicate publication
• Scientific fraud.

13
The Vancouver Style
Commonly used in medical and scientific
journals. Reference list identifies references
cited (eg. book, journal article, pamphlet,
internet site, cassette tape or film) in
sufficient detail so that others may locate and
consult the references. The reference list
appears 1. at the end of the essay/report with
the entries 2. listed numerically and 3. in the
same order that they have been cited in the
text.
14
Vancouver Style
15
Vancouver Style

• In the Vancouver Style, citations within the
  text of your essay/paper are identified by Arabic
  numbers in round brackets.
• This applies to references in text, tables and
  figures.
• e.g. (2)
• This is the style used by the referencing
  software Endnote.

16
Vancouver Style Examples

• For Books without editor
• 1. Getzen TE. Health economics fundamentals and
  flow of funds. New York (NY) John Wiley Sons
  1997.
• For Books with Editor
• 2. Millares M, editor. Applied drug information
  strategies for information management.
  Vancouver,WA Applied Therapeutics, Inc. 1998.
• For Books with Editions
• 3. Australian Government Publishing Service.
  Style manual for authors, editors and printers.
  5th ed. Canberra Australian Government
  Publishing Service 1994.

17
Vancouver Style

• For Book Chapters with edition and a series
• 4. Bennett GL, Horuk R. Iodination of chemokines
  for use in receptor binding analysis. In Horuk
  R, editor. Chemokine receptors. New York (NY)
  Academic Press 1997. p. 134-48. (Methods in
  enzymology vol 288).
• Editorial in a journal
• 6. Coffee drinking and cancer of the pancreas
  editorial. BMJ 1981283628.

18
Vancouver Style

• For Journal articles
• Russell FD, Coppell AL, Davenport AP. In vitro
  enzymatic processing of radiolabelled big ET-1 in
  human kidney as a food ingredient. Biochem
  Pharmacol 199855697-701.

19
Harvard Style

• Harvard Style is a generic term for any
  referencing style which uses 1. in-text
  references such as (Smith, 1999) and 2. a
  reference list at the end of the document
  organised by author name and year of publication.
  There is no manual of the Harvard Style
• There are many versions of the Harvard Style.
• For example, the commonly used APA Style is a
  Harvard Style.

20
APA Style

• 1. For Books without Editor
• Berkman, R. I. (1994). Find it fast How to
  uncover expert information. New York Harper
  Perennial.
• 2. For Book chapter with Editor
• Bernstein, D. (1995). Transportation planning. In
  W. F. Chen (Ed.), The Civil Engineering Handbook.
  (pp.159-196). Boca Raton CRC Press.

21
APA Style

• 3. For Article in periodical Not Journal
• Cook, D. (2002, January 28). All in the mind. The
  Age, p. 8.
• 4. Book in several editions
• DeHart, G. B., Alan Sroufe, L., Cooper, R. G.
  (1995). Child development its nature and course
  (4th ed.). Boston McGraw-Hill.
• 5. Journal Articles retrieved from
• Doherty, N. (2000). Managing careers into the
  21st century. Journal of Occupational and
  Organizational Psychology, 73, 387-388. Retrieved
  August 16, 2000, from Proquest Academic Research
  Library Database.

22
APA Style

• 6. Journal article Electronic version
• Griffith, T. L. (1993). Monitoring and
  performance a comparison of computer
  supervisor monitoring Electronic version.
  Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23,
  549-572.
• 7. Usual Journal article
• Huffman, L. M. (1996). Processing whey protein
  for use as a food ingredient. Food Technology, 50
  (2), 49-52.

23
MSM Style Modified Harvard

• Monograph series
• Since both a journal and a book ISBN and ISSN,
  follows the Harvard system
• All References should be bunched together in
  alphabetical order at the end of the submission.

24
MSM Style

• 1. For two or more references from the same
  author/authors in the same year, (a) and (b)
  maybe used after the year of publication. For
  example
• Woodruff T., (2004a), Letters The medical
  profession and the pharmaceutical industry when
  will we open our eyes? eMJA, 1818, p458-459.
• Woodruff T.G., (2004b), Pharmaceutical marketing,
  the PBS, and patient care, New Doctor, 81,
  p21-22.

25
MSM Style

• 2. For Editorials
• Angell M., (2000), Is Academic Medicine for Sale?
  (Editorial), N. Engl. J. Med., 342 (20),
  p1516-1518.
• 3. For Articles
• Schafer A., (2004), Biomedical conflicts of
  interest a defence of the sequestration
  thesis-learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri
  and David Healy, J. Med. Ethics, 30, p8-24.

26
MSM Style

• 4. For Books and Monographs
• i) Angell M., (2004), The truth about the drug
  companies how they deceive us and what to do
  about it. New York Random House.
• ii) Singh A.R., Singh S.A., (2005), Medical
  Practice, Psychiatry and the Pharmaceutical
  Industry And Ever the Trio shall Meet-I The
  Connection between Academia and Industry, Mens
  Sana Monographs, II6, III1, March-June, p5-35.

27
MSM Style

• 5. For Web References
• National Prescribing Service Limited, (2002-03),
  Annual report 2002-03, p32. Available at
  www.nps.org.au/resources/content/nps_annual_report
  _02-03.pdf (Accessed 30 April, 2009).  
• 6. For News Paper/Magazine Articles
• Harris G., (2004b), As doctor writes
  prescription, drug company writes a check, New
  York Times, June 27, A1.

28
Understanding the Two Referencing Systems

• Not just describing them
• Their nitty-gritties
• Or
• Teaching them

29
What motivates the two systems

• What are their priorities?
• What are their goals and objectives?
• How far do they achieve them?
• What have they improved by formulating these two
  systems/
• What can improve these two systems?

30
What motivates the two systems?

• Common factors
• Systematisation of referencing
• Giving due credit to earlier researchers
• Making a system faithful to its objectives,
  whatever they may be.
• Universal applicability
• Ease of understanding between fellow researchers
  and readers.

31
Specific to Harvard

• Author friendly
• Reader friendly
• Researcher friendly

32
Specific to Harvard

• It reflects a researchers/writers world view.
• An author is not just a number in the text. He is
  to be acknowledged wherever he is cited in the
  text.
• The year when he writes what is equally important
  to know how the thought/researcher has
  unfolded/progressed.

33
Specific to Vancouver

• Indexing friendly
• Librarian friendly
• Editor/Reviewer friendly
• It reflects a librarians world view.
• An author or writing is just a number
• A journal, its vol are other items helpful for
  categorising.

34
Specificity

• Harvard
• Author specific
• Vancouver
• System specific

35
Specificity

• Harvard Authors system
• Vancouver Librarians system
• Why?
• Author Name, year, journal
• Librarian Numbers

36
Librarians working

• How does a librarian manage so many volumes in a
  library?
• By assigning it a special number tag.
• For him each work is just a number, whether by
  the most brilliant scientist or the most ordinary
  writer.

37
Harvard working

• Being itself a hallowed institution, it will want
  to give due credit to authors and cite their
  names in the text as frequently as they appear.

38
What motivates the two systems?

• Vancouver
• To lay down a universal referencing system for
  all biomedical journals, easy for indexing and
  categorising
• Harvard
• To lay down a universal system which aids
  writers/researchers in understanding how papers
  are written and thoughts unfold.

39
What are their priorities?

• Vancouver
• To help indexing for NLM
• Detecting plagiarism/misquoting
• Helpful for editor/reviewer
• Harvard
• To give due credit to earlier research and help
  future writers who look up references

40
What are their goals/objectives

• Vancouver
• Foolproof indexing and categorising of research
• Uniformity and reduction of effort
• Harvard
• Better quality write-ups by researchers and
  giving credit where it is due.

41
How far have they achieved it?

• Vancouver Very well
• Harvard Very well

42
What have they improved by formulating their two
systems?

• Vancouver
• They have made indexing and cross-referencing a
  breeze.
• Reduced time and effort for writers
• Detecting plagiarism is made easy.
• Harvard
• Ease of finding authors in a ref list
• Earlier writers given due credit.
• Readers become more enlightened
• They have stuck to time honoured principles and
  need for better write-ups and more enlightened
  reading.

43
What can improve in these two systems?

• Vancouver
• 1. Can become more reader/writer/researcher
  friendly by citing authors names in the text.
• 2. Alphabetical listing of references for ease of
  citation by future authors.

44
What can improve in these two systems?

• Harvard
• Develop web citation linkages as in Vancouver.
  Clicking authors name in text should lead to
  name in reference list.
• Cross linking and deposition of references in a
  central repository like Medline/PubMed

45
Harvard

• Using authors names to link them to references
  list in online material and link them in a
  central repository like NLM will help detect
  plagiarism and unfair reporting.
• Make greater use of www that unites researchers
  world wide for greater knowledge dissemination.

46
Essential Fight

• Its essentially a fight between a categoriser, a
  librarian
• And
• A writer

47
Both Valid

• Both are valid in their respective domains.
• However
• Referencing essentially involves categorising
• So the categoriser must have a large say in the
  matter

48
Contd

• But since it is research and academic writing
  that is categorised,due importance to the writer
  and subsequent research would be appropriate.

49
Suggestions

• Vancouver system should adopt the following good
  points of Harvard
• 1. Citing authors name/year in the text
• 2. Arranging authors in alphabetical order with
  year of publication immediately following name/s
• Italicising journal names, highlighting Vol
  number for ease of reference to readers.

50
Suggestions

• Make necessary system change so this is possible.
• Not sticking to their guns, and incorporating
  these good points from the Harvard system.

51
Why the Vancouver system should change this way?

• 1. It will become both system and author friendly
• 2. It may make the Harvard system redundant by
  imbibing their good points.
• 3. Hence, the Vancouver sytem will have the
  chance to become the preferred system by all
  researchers everywhere, not just in biomedicine.

52
Why do so?

• 4. The whole knowledge corpus of scientific and
  related research will be available in a central
  repository, or linked to it.
• 5. The need to have two separate major
  referencing systems with faithful, warring
  proponents will disappear.

53
Why?

• 6. One system which encourages world wide
  exchange of scientific knowledge will result.

54
Concluding remarks

• All, provided egos can be set aside, rigidity of
  approach forsaken, and flexibility, especially by
  the dominant approach today, the Vancouver, and
  which concerns us here, can be put in place.
• It will be salutary for scientific advance in
  general and biomedical advance in particular.

55
Take Home

• Both systems have advantages.
• Vancouver is good for categorising and indexing.
• Harvard is good for research and reading.
• Vancouver can incorporate good points of Harvard
  and become the prime referencing system.