Difference between revisions of "GDPRhub commentary style guide"

From GDPRhub
Line 3: Line 3:
 
==General Information for Commentary Articles==
 
==General Information for Commentary Articles==
 
The GDPRhub Commentary features relatively short analysis regarding a GDPR Article. Commentaries should not exceed 4000 words total (including abstract, main text, references and figure legends). They should have an abstract of 50 words or less ("Overview") and no more than 35 references.
 
The GDPRhub Commentary features relatively short analysis regarding a GDPR Article. Commentaries should not exceed 4000 words total (including abstract, main text, references and figure legends). They should have an abstract of 50 words or less ("Overview") and no more than 35 references.
 
 
==Writing your Commentary Article==
 
==Writing your Commentary Article==
 
 
===Overview===
 
===Overview===
 
Commentary begins with an introductory paragraph that immediately presents the issues under discussion in a way that captures the reader's interest. The Overview should be general enough to orient the reader not familiar with the specifics of the field being discussed. Here, and throughout the article, the author should avoid the jargon and special terms of his or her field or system.
 
Commentary begins with an introductory paragraph that immediately presents the issues under discussion in a way that captures the reader's interest. The Overview should be general enough to orient the reader not familiar with the specifics of the field being discussed. Here, and throughout the article, the author should avoid the jargon and special terms of his or her field or system.
 
 
===Body of the text===
 
===Body of the text===
 
The body of the text should, in the limited space available, develop the discussion in a lively manner. By "lively" we don't mean hype and oversimplification. Rather, the editors seek clear, declarative writing that avoids the passive tense, tangled constructions, and needless detail. Avoid asides that interrupt the flow of the text.
 
The body of the text should, in the limited space available, develop the discussion in a lively manner. By "lively" we don't mean hype and oversimplification. Rather, the editors seek clear, declarative writing that avoids the passive tense, tangled constructions, and needless detail. Avoid asides that interrupt the flow of the text.
  
''Commentary structure'' --> In general, the commentary should follow the structure of the Article. We prefer an analytical approach. This means that, if possible, we analyse the meaning of the most important sentences included in each paragraph of the Article, and then we move on to the next one, with the same approach. That said in general terms, it is also true that we don't need to be that analytical all the time. In other words, if a paragraph is terribly boring or does not deserve more than five minutes of your time, you don't need to split hairs. A general headline will work just fine. <blockquote>Article 12 makes a good example. The provision is made of 8 paragraphs and each one of them is commented (check the index of contents, [[Article 12 GDPR|here]]). However, certain paragraphs (for example 1 and 5) require deeper analysis while others can be grouped in a more general "issue", without further analysis. </blockquote>''Paragraph numbering'' --> the Wiki automatically numbers paragraphs once they are given a hierarchy value ("Heading", "Sub-heading 1", "Sub-heading 2", etc). Therefore, there is no need to give a number to each paragraph. If doing so helps you in visualising the structure of the Commentary, do it. Please, remember that no numbers should be given to the paragraphs once the commentary is uploaded on the GDPRhub.
+
''Commentary structure'' --> In general, the commentary should follow the structure of the Article. We prefer an analytical approach. This means that, if possible, we analyse the meaning of the most important sentences included in each paragraph of the Article, and then we move on to the next one, with the same approach. That said in general terms, it is also true that we don't need to be that analytical all the time. In other words, if a paragraph is terribly boring or does not deserve more than five minutes of your time, you don't need to split hairs. A general headline will work just fine.<blockquote>Article 12 makes a good example. The provision is made of 8 paragraphs and each one of them is commented (check the index of contents, [https://gdprhub.eu/Article_12_GDPR here]). However, certain paragraphs (for example 1 and 5) require deeper analysis while others can be grouped in a more general "issue", without further analysis.</blockquote>''Paragraph numbering'' --> the Wiki automatically numbers paragraphs once they are given a hierarchy value ("Heading", "Sub-heading 1", "Sub-heading 2", etc). Therefore, there is no need to give a number to each paragraph. If doing so helps you in visualising the structure of the Commentary, do it. Please, remember that no numbers should be given to the paragraphs once the commentary is uploaded on the GDPRhub.
 
 
 
===Citation Style===
 
===Citation Style===
  
*''Books'' --> name(s) of author(s), full title, edition (if known), publisher ''and'' year in brackets, page.
+
*''Books (monographies)''
 
+
**surname(s) of author(s),
<blockquote>Example: Timothy Endicott, Administrative Law (OUP 2009), p. 10.</blockquote>
+
**full title,
 
+
**publisher ''and'' year in brackets,
*''Commentaries''
+
**page.
**Author(s) (just the surname),
+
<blockquote><u>Example</u>: Endicott, Administrative Law (OUP 2009), p. 10.</blockquote>
**Article (either page or recital), in
 
**Editor if applicable,
 
**Title of Book,
 
**Publisher,
 
**Year (if online, provide date of access, and you may need to cite 'Version' instead of Year)
 
 
 
<blockquote><br />Example: Leopold, Schrems, Article 80 (Recital 49), in Knyrim, Der Datkomm, Manz ,2018.</blockquote>
 
 
 
* Editor,
 
* Edition if avialable,
 
* Year if available,
 
* Article,
 
* Recital or Page,
 
  
<br />
+
*''Commentaries''
 +
**surname of author(s) [if available],
 +
**Article, ''in''
 +
**editor if applicable,
 +
**full title,
 +
**publisher ''and'' year in brackets (you may need to also cite 'Edition'),
 +
**page or recital.
 +
**(if online, provide date of access)
  
*''Journal papers'' --> name(s) of author(s), full title, full name of the journal, volume number if available, (year), page or page numbers. In case there are three or more authors, the above stays valid:
+
<blockquote>
  
<blockquote>Example: Alison Young, In Defence of Due Deference, Modern Language Review, 72, (2009), p. 554. </blockquote>
 
  
*''EDPB/DPAs guidelines, opinions'' --> name of the authority (EDPB, CNIL, etc.), title, date, page number
+
<u>Example</u> (paper): Leupold, Schrems, Article 80, in Knyrim, Der Datkomm (Manz 2018), p. 82 [''or'' Rn 49]
  
<blockquote>Example: EDPB, Guidelines 05/2020 on consent under Regulation 2016/679, 4 May 2020, p. 12.</blockquote>
+
<u>Example</u> (online): Klabunde, Article 67, in Ehman, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung (Beck 2018, 2nd ed.), Rn 16 (accessed 22.4.2021)</blockquote>
  
*''EDPB, DPA, Court decisions'' --> name of the authority, case number, date and link to the GDPRhub summary (if available) [if not available, link to the official decision or reference to the book or journal that features the decision]
+
*''Journal papers''
 +
**surname(s) author(s),
 +
**full title,
 +
**full name of the journal,
 +
**volume number (if available),
 +
**(year),
 +
**page or page numbers.
 +
**(if online, provide date of access)
 +
<blockquote><u>Example</u>: Alison Young, In Defence of Due Deference, Modern Language Review, 72, (2009), p. 554.</blockquote>
  
<blockquote>Example:  </blockquote>Please, <u>always cite the full work in each footnote. In other words, do not</u> use "op. cit", "ibid", "Idem" and similar.
+
*''EDPB/DPAs guidelines, opinions'' --> name of the authority (EDPB, CNIL, etc.), title, date, page number<blockquote><u>Example</u>: EDPB, Guidelines 05/2020 on consent under Regulation 2016/679, 4 May 2020, p. 12.</blockquote>
  
Where there are two authors, both should be named; with three or more only the first author's name plus "et al." need be given.  
+
*''EDPB, DPA, Court decisions'' --> name of the authority, case number, date and link to the GDPRhub summary (if available) [if not available, link to the official decision or reference to the book or journal that features the decision]<blockquote><u>Example</u>:</blockquote>Please, <u>always cite the full work in each footnote. In other words, do not</u> use "op. cit", "ibid", "Idem" and similar.
  
The list at the end of the paper should include only works mentioned in the text and should be arranged alphabetically by name of first author:
+
Where there are two authors, both should be named; with three or more only the first author's name plus "et al." need be given.
 
==Practical tips==
 
==Practical tips==
 
...
 
...
  
 
<br />
 
<br />

Revision as of 15:47, 22 April 2021

This page provides specific guidance on the Commentary. For general information regarding the writing style on the Hub, including on the Commentary, please follow this guide.

General Information for Commentary Articles

The GDPRhub Commentary features relatively short analysis regarding a GDPR Article. Commentaries should not exceed 4000 words total (including abstract, main text, references and figure legends). They should have an abstract of 50 words or less ("Overview") and no more than 35 references.

Writing your Commentary Article

Overview

Commentary begins with an introductory paragraph that immediately presents the issues under discussion in a way that captures the reader's interest. The Overview should be general enough to orient the reader not familiar with the specifics of the field being discussed. Here, and throughout the article, the author should avoid the jargon and special terms of his or her field or system.

Body of the text

The body of the text should, in the limited space available, develop the discussion in a lively manner. By "lively" we don't mean hype and oversimplification. Rather, the editors seek clear, declarative writing that avoids the passive tense, tangled constructions, and needless detail. Avoid asides that interrupt the flow of the text.

Commentary structure --> In general, the commentary should follow the structure of the Article. We prefer an analytical approach. This means that, if possible, we analyse the meaning of the most important sentences included in each paragraph of the Article, and then we move on to the next one, with the same approach. That said in general terms, it is also true that we don't need to be that analytical all the time. In other words, if a paragraph is terribly boring or does not deserve more than five minutes of your time, you don't need to split hairs. A general headline will work just fine.

Article 12 makes a good example. The provision is made of 8 paragraphs and each one of them is commented (check the index of contents, here). However, certain paragraphs (for example 1 and 5) require deeper analysis while others can be grouped in a more general "issue", without further analysis.

Paragraph numbering --> the Wiki automatically numbers paragraphs once they are given a hierarchy value ("Heading", "Sub-heading 1", "Sub-heading 2", etc). Therefore, there is no need to give a number to each paragraph. If doing so helps you in visualising the structure of the Commentary, do it. Please, remember that no numbers should be given to the paragraphs once the commentary is uploaded on the GDPRhub.

Citation Style

  • Books (monographies)
    • surname(s) of author(s),
    • full title,
    • publisher and year in brackets,
    • page.

Example: Endicott, Administrative Law (OUP 2009), p. 10.

  • Commentaries
    • surname of author(s) [if available],
    • Article, in
    • editor if applicable,
    • full title,
    • publisher and year in brackets (you may need to also cite 'Edition'),
    • page or recital.
    • (if online, provide date of access)


Example (paper): Leupold, Schrems, Article 80, in Knyrim, Der Datkomm (Manz 2018), p. 82 [or Rn 49]

Example (online): Klabunde, Article 67, in Ehman, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung (Beck 2018, 2nd ed.), Rn 16 (accessed 22.4.2021)

  • Journal papers
    • surname(s) author(s),
    • full title,
    • full name of the journal,
    • volume number (if available),
    • (year),
    • page or page numbers.
    • (if online, provide date of access)

Example: Alison Young, In Defence of Due Deference, Modern Language Review, 72, (2009), p. 554.

  • EDPB/DPAs guidelines, opinions --> name of the authority (EDPB, CNIL, etc.), title, date, page number

    Example: EDPB, Guidelines 05/2020 on consent under Regulation 2016/679, 4 May 2020, p. 12.

  • EDPB, DPA, Court decisions --> name of the authority, case number, date and link to the GDPRhub summary (if available) [if not available, link to the official decision or reference to the book or journal that features the decision]

    Example:

    Please, always cite the full work in each footnote. In other words, do not use "op. cit", "ibid", "Idem" and similar.

Where there are two authors, both should be named; with three or more only the first author's name plus "et al." need be given.

Practical tips

...