MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, 3rd Edition [Hardcover]

Modern Language Association (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: June 30, 2008 | ISBN-10: 0873522974 | ISBN-13: 978-0873522977 | Edition: 3

Reorganized and revised, the third edition of the MLA Style Manual offers complete, up-to-date guidance on writing scholarly texts, documenting research sources, submitting manuscripts to publishers, and dealing with legal issues surrounding publication. New in the third edition:

* a significant revision of MLA documentation style

* simplified citation formats for electronic sources

* detailed advice on the review process used by scholarly journals and presses

* a fully updated chapter on copyright, fair use, contracts, and other legal issues

* guidelines on preparing electronic files

* discussion of the electronic submission of a dissertation

* a foreword by Domna C. Stanton on the current state of scholarly publishing

* a preface by David G. Nicholls on what is new in the third edition

MLA guides present the most accurate and complete information on MLA style.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"MLA's guidelines acknowledge the great changes in the way scholarship is disseminated and consumed today. . . . The most dramatic changes are to citation styles themselves our primary interest in the manual anyway. In the second edition, as in the current editions of all other academic style guides that I could find, directions for citing electronic resources are tacked on at the end of the section on citations, and the citation format looks almost exactly like that of a print resource except that it contains a URL at the end of it. In the third edition of MLA, however, citations now include a medium (like print or Web ) for all publications, putting electronic documents on a more equal footing with print ones. Furthermore, URLs themselves are no longer included in citations in most cases; instead, the title of the overall Web site and publisher or sponsor of the site are provided to help you locate the resource. This refreshing change in perspective is longer overdue: after all, readers are increasingly likely to search for an article by title and author rather than transcribe the URL given in a print citation or follow a hyperlink that is likely to have broken.

The MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing still has that special magic. While your publication venue (or professor) usually determines which style guide you ll use, it s nice to know that, for once, the humanities aren't the last to adapt to changing technology." --The Journal of Electronic Publishing, Spring 2008

"MLA's scholarly guide was last revised ten years ago, when the online universe was less pervasive than it is now. As a result, MLA users might have expected an expanded section on online sources, but they also might have expected simply an updating of the traditions that MLA has promulgated for almost sixty years. Those users would be wrong. This edition moves MLA's scholarly guidance into the twenty-first century in ways that most of us would never have expected." --The Writing Lab Newsletter, October 2008

"Clearly written, this style manual has the official imprimatur of the Modern Language Association of America. New features include citation formation for electronic sources and guidelines for preparing electronic files. Also featured are useful sections on placing a manuscript with a journal and with a press, copyediting, proofreading, and preparing an index (including strictures on the limitations of indexing software.) This third edition of the manual is indispensable. . . . Essential." --Choice, November 2008

Product Details

• Hardcover: 336 pages
• Publisher: Modern Language Association of America; 3 edition (June 30, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0873522974
• ISBN-13: 978-0873522977
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.6 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (10 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #22,625 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #25 in Books > Medical Books > Research

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

38 of 43 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars A Shocking Debacle!, August 18, 2008

By 

E. Garcia (Hialeah, Florida USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, 3rd Edition (Hardcover)

NOTE: The previous three reviews, obviously, are reviews of the previous, second edition of this manual; I address the current, third edition--and only with regard to citation format.

The changes this edition introduces, on the whole, constitute a catastrophe for the MLA. If these changes are reflected in the next edition of the _MLA Handbook_, most students, scholars, teachers, and professors in the humanities are sure to abandon the MLA. Here are just a few of the inexplicable gaffes I have noticed so far:

1. DELETION OF THE APPENDIX ON FOOTNOTES/ENDNOTES (former Appendix A). This is the whopper. Most students and scholars in the humanities use footnotes/endnotes. Without the old appendix--which should never have been a mere appendix, to begin with--the book is rendered useless to most students and scholars. Certainly, teachers and professors can no longer recommend it, or any subsequent edition of the _MLA Handbook_ based on it, to their students.

2. PLACEMENT OF SERIES INFORMATION AT END OF CITATIONS (section 6.6.15, formerly 6.6.16). This one baffles me. Who could think such placement even remotely aesthetically pleasing? On a practical level, such placement tends to burry the ever-so-important year of publication.

3. UBIQUITOUS MEDIUM OF PUBLICATION DATA. Okay, this one baffles me too. Despite feeble protestations to the contrary, "print" and "film" are default assumptions within their respective domains. Having to write those designations at the end of all relevant citations is silly, superfluous, ugly, wordy, and a waste of ink and paper. Aren't we supposed to be "green" now?

4. CITATION OF ONLINE SOURCES. Yet another baffler! Anyone who thinks getting rid of URL addresses in citations is a good idea is just plain nuts. URLs are the easiest way of locating websites. The editors' argument that reproducing URLs is a process prone to error is specious. A simple "copy and paste" operation solves the problem easily and quickly. With citations of online sources, more is better--though, obviously, with a URL, the "web" designation would be superfluous.

5. DELETION OF BRACKETED ELLIPSES (former and current section 3.9.5). Bracketed ellipses provided the simplest way of distinguishing between original and inserted ellipses. Now, one must return to the parenthetical "ellipsis in original."

6. DELETION OF METHOD OF INDICATING ITALICS/UNDERSCORING ELECTRONICALLY (former and current section 3.5). The old recommendation was ideally suited for online boards and chatrooms and for email.

7. ERROR REGARDING COMPLETE PUBLICATION DATA FOR SPECIAL ISSUES OF JOURNALS. The end of section 6.5.13 claims to provide guidance for those wishing to provide full publication data but provides no publication data. Presumably, the intent must have been along the lines of the final example of section 6.6.16.

I have found only two welcome changes in this edition: (1) the long-overdue change from underscoring to italics; and (2) the revised format for republished journal issues, section 6.6.16, though this latter matter is rather subtle. Otherwise, as far as I have been able to check thus far, the new edition's changes in citation format are a travesty. The next edition of the _MLA Handbook_ must ignore this edition, which must be discontinued at once; otherwise, the MLA will find its influence greatly diminished and its publications staff downsized. As a longtime user of MLA format (with footnotes), it saddens me that I may have no choice but to turn to and recommend _The Chicago Manual of Style_ in the future. Certainly, I will be using this edition only as a paperweight.

For citation style, I still recommend the current, sixth edition of the _MLA Handbook_ above all other guides.

4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars No Smiley Star for you, MLA!, September 15, 2009

By 

Sören Fröhlich "SF" (San Diego) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, 3rd Edition (Paperback)

I basically agree with the review of E. Garcia ("A Shocking Debacle!" August 18, 2008), but wanted to add some comments.

For all those confused ones out there: this book is the professional publishing guide, which goes beyond the student's guide to writing papers. It also went into the 3rd (THIRD) edition, which is substantially different from prior editions, and that is what I am speaking of here. I don't believe there is much of a point in comparing citation formats, especially qualitatively, and I have used APA, MLA, and some things individual professors made up. However, I have encountered some radical, narrow-minded ideologies in the academia, with one senior social scientist essentially spelling out a future of ignorance for anyone who dared use the MLA. (I know they spoke of publications in the field, but the way it was put was rather childish.)

So far, I like the MLA fine, and so far was happy to use the format. Which brings me to the reason I had to write something: after having written a few papers last quarter using the new edition...and boy was that fun! MLA, what on earth made you put in that insane rule about adding "Print." to every print resource in the works cited section? Has it come to this? CDs, YouTube, and random web resources are easier to enter??? This is insanity, tedious, and useless.

For a very systematic, concise review I again refer to Garcia, but overall I want to add that I don't find many of the changes quite as disgusting as they do...perhaps I still lack the necessary experience. However, when one of my professors told us about the bad news of the 3rd ed., she almost lost her breakfast. The poor woman is one of the countless editors and publishers of small professional periodicals, and now all these folks have to re-learn everything that made sense. The new edition is not just another step, another improvement, fine-tuning, or repair job, but a radical break and a basic change in their logic, and the result is less than satisfying. No smiley star for you, MLA!

4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, November 12, 2008

By 

M. Horey (Northridge, CA United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, 3rd Edition (Hardcover)

This book does everything it is advertised to do.

A fault of the book: The book (on p. 214) should clarify what is considered the "title" of a web-page: Is it that which is written on the title bar, or the actual title heading the text?

However, I do not like the MLA citation style. In-text citations are much more intrusive than are footnotes or endnotes. They are also more difficult for the reader to match to the writer's documentation, if, for instance, the writer is using several works from the same source (e.g., the same government agency, where author's names are not usually given). In such a case, especially if the titles of the cited works are similar, the long title would have to be inserted parenthetically in the text, instead of just having a footnote number. It is a cumbersome citation style.