next »

[octoprof]

So if those articles cited, say, JAMA, you wanted a link to tell you where to find it online?

In general, if a professional scholar of any kind wants an article outside his/her field, does s/he not know to check the online databases to see what's available? That's all I'm saying.

Not all your readers will be professional scholars. I think you are being elitist. :o)

octoprof, who has included URLs in her citations at times

[hollow_man]

So if those articles cited, say, JAMA, you wanted a link to tell you where to find it online?

In general, if a professional scholar of any kind wants an article outside his/her field, does s/he not know to check the online databases to see what's available? That's all I'm saying.

Not all your readers will be professional scholars. I think you are being elitist. :o)

octoprof, who has included URLs in her citations at times

Just trying to be realistic! Who would want to read my scholarship if it wasn't their job?!  ;-]

[octoprof]

So if those articles cited, say, JAMA, you wanted a link to tell you where to find it online?

In general, if a professional scholar of any kind wants an article outside his/her field, does s/he not know to check the online databases to see what's available? That's all I'm saying.

Not all your readers will be professional scholars. I think you are being elitist. :o)

octoprof, who has included URLs in her citations at times

Just trying to be realistic! Who would want to read my scholarship if it wasn't their job?!  ;-]

I'm sure it's fascinating stuff, just like my fascinating stuff!  :-o

[the_honey_badger]

So if those articles cited, say, JAMA, you wanted a link to tell you where to find it online?

In general, if a professional scholar of any kind wants an article outside his/her field, does s/he not know to check the online databases to see what's available? That's all I'm saying.

Not all your readers will be professional scholars. I think you are being elitist. :o)

octoprof, who has included URLs in her citations at times

Just trying to be realistic! Who would want to read my scholarship if it wasn't their job?!  ;-]

I'm sure it's fascinating stuff, just like my fascinating stuff!  :-o

I think everyone *should* read my stuff---seriously, your grandma would love my book for Christmas... I don't believe its killed any grandmothers yet. At least not at the rate my midterm exams reportedly do.

[infopri]

So if those articles cited, say, JAMA, you wanted a link to tell you where to find it online?

In general, if a professional scholar of any kind wants an article outside his/her field, does s/he not know to check the online databases to see what's available? That's all I'm saying.

Well, JAMA is probably not a good example, given its stature.  There are plenty of journals in any given field that are a lot harder to find than JAMA.  And yes, most professionals (especially in my field) can probably find the electronic version of a particular resource on their own, but why not make the job easier for them, if you already have the information in hand?

I'm really just reflecting the practices of my field and related fields. One rarely sees a URL in a footnote.

Understood.  And the differences are indeed discipline-specific.  My field, for example, never puts citations in a footnote.  Citations go into a reference list at the end of the article, chapter, or book.  Footnotes are reserved for explanatory or other supplemental text.

Second, why on earth would your provision of URLs not help such people??

Because non-scholars aren't going to track down my citations anyway! ;-D

Ya never know.  :)

[pandora]

I suspect that many of the debates we've been having here may have more to do with disciplinary differences than anything else.  Some people are foregrounding courtesy to your future readers (and let's not get carried away with how many of those there will be...), and some (like me) are hewing to the traditional professional responsibilities line.  I appreciate courtesy, certainly, but I don't feel obligated to meet more than the traditional professional responsibilities.

[raoul]

I think the important question is, what is it you worry you might be "disguising"? Perhaps there's an anxiety that your data were skewed by what is available online (the reference to the difficulty of visiting the appropriate research centers from Australia points to this).

Let's say hypothetically that a scholar has written a paper whose argument is: "In the decade of the 1820s, British periodicals overwhelming took attitude X toward issue Y." Then your paper cites a bunch of examples to back this up. Now, if you ONLY used examples that were from periodicals that were available online, because you weren't able to get any other periodicals, then I would say that you had done an incomplete job of research. The ones that happen to be available online might not be the best or most representative sample with which to address your topic. And if you didn't indicate that you used online versions of the periodicals because you hoped that no one would notice how artificially limited your sample was, then I think that would be a bit shady.

However, if you first created a list of all the periodicals you thought would be relevant to your argument, and then studied each of these in the most conveniently accessible trustworthy form, which would probably include: 1) original copies in a library or archive; 2) photographic reproductions in microforms; and 3) scanned page images online; then I can't see how anyone could possibly think it would be necessary for you to indicate the format in which you viewed each document.

In my field (a humanities field), I think everyone is pretty well aware of which periodicals, old books, etc are available online and what the major web sites are that have these, so I don't see a reason to point people to the obvious, anymore than it's necessary to tell someone that The Quarterly Review is available on microfilm and you don't have to get a grant to go to London to read it in the British Library.

This does raise the possibility of a funny grant application: "I need 10 thousand dollars to go to London to do research this summer for a paper I've already written, because I used online sources for the data and I need to sit in the British Library and read the originals so my citations will seem more scholarly. I would very much like to receive sufficient funds to bring my family along, as well."

[john_proctor]

Oh I knew people would say that.  But it isn't about doing the right thing. I knew giving both would be morally right and the most correct solution academically speaking.  This is the first time in my life I have ever considered even the slightest diversion from the most morally right option.  But, I think as soon as you put the websites in, it looks less solid a piece of work.  Doesn't anyone else think so? 

I just wanted to offer a thought on this idea before we get too far from it:

In Biblical / Classical Studies (and fields drawing on that literature), the standard citation format is to give generic "book chapter verse" (or book-line or whatever) references in the paper, itself.  For example, you would cite using something like Plato, Republic VII.522.  Or Genesis 1:12.

The idea is that anyone using any original or translated text (with standardized annotations) would be able to locate your reference.

Often, if you quote, you may cite your translation (or indicate in footnotes you're using your own); if there's no translation citation for a quote, the general assumption is, I think, that the translation is the author's own.

In your bibliography, you would note the edition/publication of your text (also, it's not at all uncommon for people doing work in, say, classics to reference standard texts published online - particularly through the Packard Humanities Index texts).

If your work is using primary, archive documents, wouldn't that be analogus.  Your citations would then be "Letter of January 12, 1889).  You would then have a footnote indicating where these materials can be found (including the note: archive available online at xyz.org).

That's not at all dishonest.

I can't imagine how it could be viewed otherwise.

Now, if you make a big deal out of or make an argument suggesting you, physically, personally went to look at the archived item...