Yes, specific references are essential. And very rarely forthcoming.
I have found polystrate fossil claims to be the most poorly documented of their claims (with the possible exception of Gish's bullfrog protein claim). When a local creationist activist demanded I explain polystrate fossils, I asked him for a reference and he had to admit that he couldn't produce a single one (and this guy is so bad that it was virtually impossible to get him to admit to anything).
Many years ago I did get one creationist to produce a reference. The claim was from the ICR's Steve Austin (formerly "Stuart Nevins") and his scientific reference was included. Austin misrepresented his source. Furthermore, part of Austin's claim depended on strata being laid down at a very slow constant rate for the thousands or millions of years between the formation of the top and the bottom layers of the formation, whereas the referenced article not only discussed episodic rapid depositation (eg, from localized flooding) but also discussed the geological evidence used to distinguish between rapid and slow depositation and pointed out the layers in the formation in question that had resulted from rapid depositation. In other words, this claim, as to most polystrate fossil claims, depends on misunderstanding and misrepresenting basic geology.
™ Version 4.2