On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 07:02:52 -0700, Louis Eugene Schmier wrote:
Well, Mike, since some people use online sources and others prefer
hard copy sources, the solution really is simple, but requires
integrity.
Assuming there are no changes in copy from hard copy to online copy,
the researcher, student or whomever, should only cite one of the two
sources. Should both copies be cited, an explanatory comment
should accompany the second citation. At least, that's what I do.
Louis, stop and consider: the printed copy of an article has served
as the "official" version of the article for purpose of establishing
"priority"
as well as fixing a date for citation purposes and for database indexing
(e.g., "publication date" in, say, PsycInfo). Even in this framework,
one
could argue that the date on the letter from the editor indicating that
the paper has been accepted for publication (after revisions) is the
official date of "publication" for purposes of priority setting. In
essence, making "online pre-publication" copies of an article available
before paper printing is a variation on using the paper acceptance
date as an "official date". But this is a separate problem (i.e., do
you cite the date of first availability online or the printed date?)
from
the situation I described.
I don't know exactly when the practice of providing electronic versions
of printed articles on the date of paper publication but articles prior
to
this point only appeared/were available in paper form. These had to
be scanned in and converted in electronic format. This process is
ongoing and I guess one might be curious about when the electronic
version of a printed article was first made available (this is the
situation
I described) but the "conversion date" is not really of any scientific
or historical importance as far as I can see. But clearly it will cause
confusion as I indicated, especially since some software cannot
distinguish between "paper publication" date and "paper conversion"
date. The latter is irrelevant. A paper published in 1996 but its
electronic version was not available until 2010 by the publisher
will still be cited as having a 1996 publication date not a 2010 date.
However, on research social media websites that list publications,
this article may be treated as two distinct/original articles, inflating
any measure of productivity.
-Mike Palij
New York University
[email protected]
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=36169
or send a blank email to
leave-36169-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
