Is it fine to use link shorteners for research paper citations?
I'm curious about the "properness" of using shortened links (a la bit.ly or tinyurl) in research papers. I haven't been able to find any sort of definitive reference about whether or not this is accepted or frowned upon.
I found a blot post by a professor at Texas A&M who stated he was going to use shortened links in an upcoming paper.
I'm working on a paper that won't be published or anything, but it's got a lot of online references that make footnotes horridly ugly, and so I'm taking the opportunity to ask about this.
If it varies based on publishing area/type (scientific, editorial, etc.), that would be great to know as well.
Edit: Since it's coming up in answers... this is a hobby project in which I'm trying to mathematically describe a multi-level marketing scheme. It seems some think it would be frustrating to see a shortened link, perhaps because the actual link would reveal some helpful information when reading a paper.
But what if it's simply a pdf that I was able to find, it's official, but it's not hosted an an "official site" anymore? For example, consider the following:
Lindeen, Monica J., Commissioner of Securities and Insurance and Montana State Auditor (2010). Case No.: SEC-2010-12. Retrieved 30 July 2011 from www.starnewsonline.com/assets/pdf/WM21622123.pdf. Lindeen, Monica J., Commissioner of Securities and Insurance and Montana State Auditor (2010). Case No.: SEC-2010-12. Retrieved 30 July 2011 from bit.ly/pBrheo.
Is there a huge difference here? I originally found the link from the actual Montana government site, but it's no longer there, perhaps since the cease and desist order was resolved... now it happens to be downloadable from a "star news online" site. It's the same official document, and downloading the pdf would make that clear.
What would seeing "starnewsonline" in the url reveal that's important for the paper?
Lastly, that edit was an aside. It's helpful to know opinions, but the actual question is still more about official acceptance or practice in the real world.
(6)6 Comments
Sorted by latest first Latest Oldest Best
I'm wrestling with this issue right now. It is annoying to see a long, long URL, but equally annoying to see meaningless short URLs (beginning 'bit.ly,' which I mistakenly took to be malware sites at first). Since Bitly now allows customized short URLs, how about this as a citation: "Official Records, Series 1, Vol. 41, Part 3, 423. Google eBooks [shortened URL] bit.ly/OfficialRecords-I-43-3-Eli-Long .
The short URL indicates the source, and replaces this monstrosity: books.google.com/books?id=xcVZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA423&lpg=PA423&dq=col.+eli+long+and+waterhouse%27s+house&source=bl&ots=ZrL5PI1rYe&sig=46cfvONeV8KIjIJmGFeLMgLH6DY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix9JGPt5nOAhVM5yYKHRjyDRAQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=col.%20eli%20long%20and%20waterhouse's%20house&f=false .
The long URL produced a broken link anyway, because Google used the (') character. Some eBooks have even longer URLs, so I need this common-sense solution. For my current project, this is my decision to make, but for a formal thesis or publication, would it be acceptable? Chicago Style allows a good bit of leeway. MLA Style is less flexible.
The issue here is that you are referencing a written piece of work, and the URL is likely to be integral to that reference.
While the shortened URL does direct you to the location of the work you are citing, the shortened URL is (with few exceptions) not the source of that reference. At best, the shortened URL points you in the direction of the work in question, much like an index card in a library points you to a particular book.
I would therefore say using a link shortener should be avoided as part of a list of citations or references, unless you provide both the shortened URL, and the original URL (but providing the original makes the shortened URL redundant). I understand the "neatness" you are referring to, but neatness is, in my opinion, secondary to the goal of clarity of information.
One exception I could think of would be URL shortners that are used by the actual website you're referencing. For example, the New York Times uses its own, as does You Tube, and many others. In that case, you could probably argue that it's a legitimate link to the source.
One small point to make about URL shortners: their longevity is probably even less than actual URLs and can lead to "linkrot". Imagine you used bit.ly or another service for all your references in all your work, and then one day they close down as a company. I certainly would not rely on them except for things like Twitter, where immediacy of information and brevity is a necessity, and you generally don't worry about how long that link will work.
I am not in academia, but I would actually be annoyed to see a shortened URL as a footnote. You aren't writing it by hand; as far as I know there aren't maximum printed page requirements; if it's being posted online there are no physical maximum lengths; you aren't paying for anything by the character — why would you go out of your way to hide a source?
You can do both. Use the tiny URL as footnote and provide an appendix/bibliography with the long URLs. Also an accompanying website could list all URLs used in the paper.
Tiny URLs have the problem that they disguise usable information for the reader. They do not see immediately if you cite Wikipedia or MIT. This is of course not the case if you mention the source in your text each time.
The Canadian site Slaw has a discussion about this topic. But no solution as far as I see.
URLs which span several lines and contain special symbols simply require a short link. Example:
In such a case, do not worry and use a (well-known/reliable) link shortener. Tinyurl.com has the advantage, that preview.tinyurl.com/ ... leads to a preview site where the user can see the url the link is leading to and then decide whether to proceed to that location or whether not to visit it. Example for the url given above:
preview.tinyurl.com/NICOP1973NA
When you are using a DOI which is too long, you can use a shortdoi.org/. While its target is not obvious (is a DOI obvious at all?), it is still a DOI, thus some respectability can be assumed by the reader.
Your example confuses the issue just a bit. There is a difference between print documents that are available online, and online articles. In the former case you don't need to give a link at all, and when you do, you are doing it simply to make the document more accessible. In this case you can use any link shortener that you like. The url is irrelevant to the publication and is just a host.
In the latter case you need to give the exact url. This applies to blogs, online newspaper articles, online only journals, and so on. It makes a difference insofar as you obscure the "publisher" by removing the original url. Yes, your reader can still get there by clicking the link, but this is not usually the point of foot-/end-notes. I, as you reader, don't want to click through every single note; but if I see a citation from a website that I know I don't trust, I can now check out that information more thoroughly.
Terms of Use Privacy policy Contact About Cancellation policy © freshhoot.com2025 All Rights reserved.