BUG, DOC: Correct adsurl value and add a general url field in CITATION.bib

[cgobat]

Reference issue

N/A

What does this implement/fix?

The repository's CITATION.bib file currently defines a value for the adsurl key that is not, in fact, an ADS URL. The rdcu.be link that's currently there is not what LaTeX/BibTeX styles and formatters that look for and/or use entries' adsurl keyword expect to find, and it's not the intended/generally accepted use of the keyword either. This PR corrects that, and provides a link to the publication's ADS page.

Additional information

NASA's ADS (Astrophysics Data System) is a widely-used resource in the physics and astronomy scientific community. It is the "industry-standard" tool for searching/browsing scholarly works in the field. Many LaTeX bibstyles, including AASTeX, MNRAS, and A&A, give special treatment to the value associated with the adsurl keyword in BibTeX entries.

[mdhaber]

@tupui what do you think about the alternative - just making this a regular URL? I'm a fan of astrophysics, but I don't think this should be domain specific.

[cgobat]

There is the url keyword if a generic URL is desired. The adsurl keyword is, by identity, for an ADS link.

[cgobat]

I went ahead and added this field (url) as well since it was previously not present.

[tupui]

Mmm I would remove this field entirely. The DOI is the real reference URL and we should not have to rely on any external/domain specific service.

[cgobat]

@tupui @mdhaber I hear you guys about domain specificity, but in my opinion, more metadata is almost always a good thing (as long as it doesn't cause problems, which in this case it doesn't). Keep in mind that $\LaTeX$ citation styles that don't use the adsurl field will simply ignore it, and just because something is present in this .bib file doesn't mean it will appear in the typeset reference. In fact, you could even add a line that said madeupfield = {meaninglesscontent}, and it wouldn't have any effect on the output. Non-ADS-aware citation styles that use doi and/or url can still find and use those fields just fine.

[mdhaber]

Sound like a fair point. @tupui you ok with that?

[tupui]

Alright alright 😅 well and why not since the field was in fact already there.

[tupui]

Go ahead for the merge if you agree Matt :) (I would do it but not 100% sure you are onboard)

[cgobat]

Thanks guys—cheers! 😀

[tupui]

Thanks to you for raising it 😃