Stephen Machon on ‘Making footnotes and bibliographies plain’

On 11 October, UniSIG was treated to the online talk ‘Making footnotes and bibliographies plain – decoding, readability, Zotero/AI, consistency’ by former SENSE member (and past convener of FINLEGSIG) Dr Stephen Machon, who is a highly experienced legal English editor/reviewer and trainer. He spoke on a necessary part of the scholarly and academic machinery of publications: footnotes and bibliographies. Having clarified that the information provided under the headings ‘Bibliography’ and ‘References’ is essentially the same, as both refer to a list of sources, Stephen pointed out that footnotes (and endnotes) may also indicate the sources substantiating an assertion in the main text as well as provide additional information or opinions not central to the narrative. Bibliographies and footnotes are both important because they contribute to an author’s academic standing.

There is no one agreed footnote or bibliographical entry style, which leaves editors, proofreaders and reviewers prey to the vagaries of publishers’ editorial staff and their style guidelines. Our job as editors is to ensure consistency and readability not only in the narrative but also in the footnotes and bibliography. Being aware of where we can make the coded language of footnotes and bibliographies plain can contribute significantly to the readability of a scholarly publication, whether an article, monograph, or PhD thesis.

One noteworthy difference between the Dutch and English footnote conventions that Stephen drew our attention to relates to footnote numbering: the Anglo convention is for the numbering to begin afresh for each chapter, but the Dutch convention is to continue numbering consecutively throughout the thesis or book. This can result in very unwieldy footnote numbers and vastly complicates any renumbering needed after removing or adding a footnote, so Stephen recommends advising Dutch authors to follow the Anglo convention.

Stephen showed examples of reference styles, explaining that he’s punctilious about ensuring consistency in the bibliographies and footnotes of the law PhD theses he edits, and is paid well for doing so. Lively discussion ensued about whether when dealing with a monograph thesis or an article intended to be part of a compilation thesis a language professional should rigorously copy-edit the bibliography or reference list and the citations. Alice Lehtinen’s comment in the meeting chat summarizes the feelings of many of the 17 attendees: ‘I think it depends on what your role is, on what you’ve agreed to do. In my case, I avoid checking bibliographies etc. like the plague, but I make this clear to the client. I consider myself the language expert, and that these things are down to the client to check.’

Stephen has kindly agreed to allow his PowerPoint® presentation to be sent to interested SENSE members, so if you missed this lively and informative meeting or would like to be reminded of what Stephen covered in his talk, please email Joy (the UniSIG convener).