[Lingtyp] Why cite non-Latin-script literature ONLY in Latin script?

[Joo, Ian]

Dear all,

I would like to ask a question to everybody:
When citing literature written in non-Latin script, why do some editors require it to be cited ONLY in Latin script?
For example, this is how I would cite a Chinese book, when writing an article in English:
Xùliàn旭练Lǐ李.Láiyǔ yánjiū倈语硏究. Zhōngguó xīn fāxiàn yǔyán yánjiū cóngshū中国新发现语言研究丛书. Zhōngyāng mínzú dàxué chūbǎnshè中央民族大学出版社, Běijīng北京
As you can see, in both the original script (Chinese) and Latin script. But some editors require it to be:
Xùliàn Lǐ. Láiyǔ yánjiū. Zhōngguó xīn fāxiàn yǔyán yánjiū cóngshū. Zhōngyāng mínzú dàxué chūbǎnshè, Běijīng.
But why would we not write the original script and ONLY write in Latin script?
The point of citing literature is to enable the reader to go find and consult it themself.
But when the author’s name is written as Xùliàn Lǐ, I have no idea how that would be written in Chinese, thus making it more difficult to find the literature when needed.
So what is the logical purpose of requiring the article to be cited ONLY in Latin script?
The only logical reason I can think of is that it saves some space – ca. one line per citation. But is that a good enough reason to make things harder for those actually wanting to find and read the cited work?
I would like to hear your opinion on this matter.
(I’m asking this question on Lingtyp mailing list, because our subfield makes it necessary for some of us to make extensive use of non-Latin-script literature.)

From Daejeon,
Ian

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20200331/4ff13132/attachment.htm>