An American Editor

March 29, 2010

Footnotes, Endnotes, & References: Uses & Abuses

I read a lot of nonfiction books, both in my work and for pleasure, and one of the most annoying things to me is improper thought given to footnotes, endnotes, and references.

Many years ago, an academic client told me, in response to my question about why a 50-manuscript page chapter had nearly 1,000 references — a bit of overkill, I thought — that in his academic circles, if he wanted to move up the ladder his writings had to have lots of references. He went on to say that it was not unusual for people to look at the quantity rather than the quality of the references.

References do have a legitimate purpose, but this comment made wonder — and I continue to wonder — about notes (notes being the inclusive term for footnotes, endnotes, and references). Granted, I am as guilty as my client’s academic peers in that if I see a book on a heavy subject that purports to be the comprehensive study of the subject to date that has only a few references, I wonder about the quality of the work. On the other hand, if I find every other word bearing a reference, I wonder if any real effort was placed in the writing; is there any original material to be found between the covers? There is a fine line of too much and too little referencing.

There is also the problem of quality vs. quantity, especially when many of the notes cite references that are citing other references, that is, a cite of a cite of a cite or the syndrome of inconsequential citation. If Jones cites Smith who cites Waterloo for a proposition espoused by Spinster, and Jones hasn’t verified (a) that Spinster actually espoused the proposition, (b) that Waterloo has correctly cited and attributed to Spinster (as, e.g., in correctly quoting Spinster), and (c) that Smith is correctly citing Waterloo, of what value is the cite other than to take up space? And if Jones is going to go to the trouble to verify the sources, as Jones should, then why not bypass Smith and Waterloo and directly cite Spinster?

Referencing is necessary in serious academic work. I don’t dispute that. But how it is done is problematic. Is it more important that I note the references or the text? And what about footnotes (and endnotes) that provide their own discussion or explanation of the material? I still shudder when I come across a footnote that is many paragraphs long and has umpteen cites to support just the footnote. I have always been of the view that if it is important enough to be in an explanatory note, it should be incorporated into the main text.

Unlike end-of-book references, footnotes and endnotes are distractions. They interrupt the reading flow. If they give no more information than a reference cite, why distract the reader from the text with a callout to the reference? If they provide additional details that the reader should be made aware of, why not incorporate that information in the text body? If it isn’t important enough to be incorporated into the main text, perhaps it is not important enough to interrupt the reader’s concentration on the text.

Endnotes are worse than footnotes because they prevent the reader from easily scanning the note to see how worthwhile interrupting reading the text to read the notes would be. One needs to locate the endnote by physically turning to a new location in the book. How frustrating to get to the endnote to discover that in its entirety it reads: Ibid. That bit of information was certainly worth interrupting concentration on the text! Noting distracts the reader, usually for no intellectual gain.

The problem is academia. Too much emphasis is placed in unimportant things. It is the form rather than the substance that dominates. Not so many years ago, in a discussion with academics at a local college, it was made clear that if someone wanted to get tenured at the college, they had to write a peer-reviewed book that was published by a publisher from an approved list, which list was in rank order; that is, the closer the publisher was to the top, the better the chances of obtaining tenure. It was also made clear that there were specific expectations regarding noting, including a minimum number of expected notes.

It seems to me that the communication of knowledge should be the primary focus of an academic book. Scholarship should be judged on the information conveyed within the main body, not the number of times concentration is interrupted. In fact, interruptions should be minimized and minimal interruptions should be rewarded.

Readers assume that if a work is cited in a note or reference that the book’s author has actually read the cited work rather than relied on someone else’s summary of the work. Reader’s also assume that the cited work actually says what is claimed or relates to the material for which it is being cited. Are these valid assumptions? I know that as a reader I do not have either the time or the desire to check each cite for accuracy — neither for accuracy of the cite itself or for the content for which it is cited; I wonder how many people actually do check each and every cite or are we simply impressed and overwhelmed by the number of cites?

I think that scholarship can be better served by more effort placed in writing the main text, fewer footnotes (and no endnotes), and a comprehensive reference list at the end of the book that is divided into two parts: references relied on for the book and recommended additional sources of information. If the author has a message worth communicating, it is worth not interrupting and worth not going down the side roads to which footnotes and endnotes often lead. Occasional footnotes, even lengthy explanatory ones, are appropriate, but it is inappropriate, in my thinking, to bombard the reader with hundreds of distractions.

Another questionable practice as regards footnotes, endnotes, and references is the citing of online material. Here today, gone tomorrow is, unfortunately, the reality of a lot of online material. Unlike a book that gets stored in libraries for future generations to use, online material often shifts or disappears and is difficult to verify. Today’s valid URL is tomorrow’s Not Found error.

When I see a book that relies heavily on online sources, I wonder about the content. Online material isn’t always scrutinized for verity, making it highly suspect. Along with overnoting and poor noting, relying on online sources is not a sign of quality; rather, it is a sign of quantity.

Something authors should keep in mind: The purpose of writing a nonfiction book is to advance knowledge, spread it around; it is not to create a book that simply sits on the buyer’s bookshelf. It is better to be remembered for what one wrote than for what one noted.



  1. I couldn’t agree with this more, both as a reader and as an editor. As a reader, I detest footnotes, for the reasons outlined. As an editor, I’ve started avoiding academic books, which are otherwise a good source of income, because the references are so time-consuming, annoying, and confusing that they’re not worth the trouble — and often consume more time/work than the main text.


    Comment by Carolyn Haley — March 29, 2010 @ 8:22 am | Reply

  2. “Endnotes are worse than footnotes because they prevent the reader from easily scanning the note to see how worthwhile interrupting reading the text to read the notes would be.”

    Ah, but the moment you look down at the bottom of the page, you’ve interrupted your reading of the text. In fact, the moment you look at the superscript number and contemplate looking down to the bottom, you’ve interrupted yourself. With the advent of various electronic ways of preparing texts, I’d opt for a version in which the reader can click on an option to “Suppress all notes,” which would hide the FN callout as well as the text itself, if it’s designed to be displayed on the same page.


    Comment by Michael Brady — March 29, 2010 @ 8:28 am | Reply

  3. This makes me even more glad than usual that I no longer edit academic work, whether journal articles or full-length book mss.! I think if I saw a document with 1,000 notes, whether foot, end, or something else, I’d pass out before I got to the first page for editing. Kinda like a recent project that had a 250-page PPT document as one of the resource items – I had to meet with the prospective client just to see such a monster! It turned out to be less intimidating and more user-friendly than I expected, and well-organized enough to actually use in developing the project, but both the idea and first glance of a 250-page PPT was daunting, to say the least.


    Comment by Ruth E. Thaler-Carter — March 29, 2010 @ 9:49 am | Reply

  4. […] alone in this regard: It uses endnotes rather than footnotes. I’ve discussed this before (see Footnotes, Endnotes, & References: Uses & Abuses), but I consider this a major defect in a book because of the constant need to switch between the […]


    Pingback by On Books: The Hebrew Republic « An American Editor — June 7, 2010 @ 8:16 am | Reply

  5. […] With so many guerilla bands to cover, this book could have been a book of rote entries — dry but encyclopedic; instead, it is well written and easy to read. This book does suffer from the endnote problem, but in this case, I was able to ignore all the endnotes. For the most part, they were simply citations, not explanations. However, the book would have been enhanced if it had not had the endnote callouts or at least had a prefatory author’s note saying that they could be ignored by the average reader. (For my view of endnotes and footnotes, see Footnotes, Endnotes, & References: Uses & Abuses.) […]


    Pingback by On Books: A Savage Conflict « An American Editor — June 21, 2010 @ 7:30 am | Reply

  6. Considering your recent posts on e-books, it seems that this is a prime area where e-books could shine over printed ones. An e-book would negate the issue of flipping through for endnotes, since you could potentially pop the endnote while reading to scan for relevance or interest. In fact, all notes could be at the end as opposed to footnotes and references that interrupt the text because you could call them forth via pop-up.

    Still, your point about over-use and abuse is still valid. The e-book could help mitigate, but not solve this problem. I agree – if it is important enough for more than one sentence, put it in the text! Your real world examples just reinforce the idea that academia is losing respect. Tenure because you published with the right company as opposed to, gasp, being a good teacher or an expert in your field? Reminds me of the saying: “I have BS (BullSh!T), MS (More Sh!t) and a PhD (Piled High and Deep)!!!!


    Comment by J'aime Maynard — June 24, 2010 @ 3:09 pm | Reply

  7. […] riddled with footnotes (or endnotes) and references. (For my view of the use of these notes, see Footnotes, Endnotes, & References: Uses & Abuses.) I know that some readers, if not most, simply bypass these annoyances, but I admit I’m one […]


    Pingback by Struggling with eBooks: To Read or Not to Read « An American Editor — August 17, 2010 @ 5:39 am | Reply

  8. […] riddled with footnotes (or endnotes) and references. (For my view of the use of these notes, see Footnotes, Endnotes, & References: Uses & Abuses.) I know that some readers, if not most, simply bypass these annoyances, but I admit I’m one who […]


    Pingback by Struggling with eBooks: To Read or Not to Read | The Digital Reader — August 17, 2010 @ 5:51 am | Reply

  9. […] view regarding the misuse of footnotes and endnotes, which was discussed on An American Editor in Footnotes, Endnotes, & References: Uses & Abuses.) Readers need to stop and think about every i.e. and what it really means in the […]


    Pingback by On Language: That Is, For Example « An American Editor — December 3, 2012 @ 4:01 am | Reply

  10. This is a bit late, but I think this posts paints text references in too broad a brush. The writer notes that end-notes are more trouble to use than footnotes. This observation needs to be deepened. Non-fiction authors don’t traffic in truth, that’s for artists and philosophers. Non-fiction deals with what can be proved, usually only to some extent. Some readers may swallow their non-fiction whole, but others use footnotes as checks and balances. A writer’s end-note references may run to impressively high numbers, but are all from a single source. Footnotes prevent this hand-waving. An editor may think text either is or isn’t meant for print, but this is always subjective. Most writers, and many editors, recognize that what gets included, and what’s left out, is based on guessing audience interests. Since audiences are made of many different individuals, it’s always an imperfect decision. Footnotes allow some hedging. Indeed footnotes may be the most interesting part of a text, which implies that the reader is precisely one whom the writer and editor didn’t primarily target.

    Liked by 2 people

    Comment by Brian C — November 2, 2015 @ 3:59 am | Reply

  11. The article misses the purpose of citation for the purpose of establishing truth of the facts used by the author, or the provenance of the information communicated. For that, it is critical to have notes that cite the original work. This is also necessary to avoid plagiarism. The original source needs to be cited at the point where the author is using the other author’s original work. If this is inconvenient to the reader, that reader might as well be reading blogs on the internet. Consider the source. Give the original source due credit.


    Comment by CHARLES M BYRNE — September 15, 2017 @ 12:10 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: