4 ms·
It depends on how you come across the paper. Peer-reviewed scientific journals (as well as some preprint channels that aren't peer reviewed) are fully explicit
by xenocyon 6y ago
It depends on how you come across the paper. Peer-reviewed scientific journals (as well as some preprint channels that aren't peer reviewed) are fully explicit about the date of publication. However, if those same papers are published on another website, they might lack metadata such as date and publication venue. This is a good reason to link to the actual publication source instead of to a PDF copy of the paper (unless you have good reason not to, such as a paywall).
PS: in this case: it turns out that the paper was published in the International Symposium of Formal Methods Europe, 1996: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-60973-3_77 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-60973-3_77
- feanaro 6y ago> This is a good reason to link to the actual publication source instead of to a PDF copy of the paper (unless you have good reason not to, such as a paywall). It would still be best to include the date inside the artifact itself instead of relying on external and contextual metadata like you are describing. As long as we're at it, documents should also ideally include their DOI.
- compiler-guy 6y ago1996 predates most of the web as we know it today. It was a different time with different standards.
- feanaro 6y agoI agree. My comment wasn't about shaming the old standards but about establishing new ones.