In a CS paper, it is common to refer to prior work like [1] and [42] rather than Brown & Bunter (1923) or Nonesuch (2001). It is a convention I have followed in my papers with CS colleagues. Upon reflection, I find it irritating and mean spirited.

  1. No useful information is conveyed by the string of numbers masquerading as references beyond the statement: `authors think there are X relevant references.’
  2. A referee wishing to check if the authors are aware of relevant work must scroll or leaf to the end of the paper to verify this.
  3. The casual reader cannot be surprised by some new and relevant reference unless they scroll or leaf to the end of the paper to verify this.
  4. Citations are part of the currency (or drug) we live by. Why be parsimonious in acknowledging the contributions of A. N. Other? It shows a want of fellow feeling.

I suspect that the convention is an artifact of the page limits on conference proceedings. A constraint that seems quaint. Some journals, the JCSS for example, follows the odd convention of referring to earlier work as Bede [22]! But which paper by the venerable and prolific Bede does the author have in mind?