Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 33, No. 727. Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London Hosted by King's Digital Lab www.dhhumanist.org Submit to: firstname.lastname@example.org  From: Ken Friedman
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 33.725: liberated resources for research training (148)  From: Gabriel Egan Subject: Re: [Humanist] 33.726: on using academia.edu (58)  From: Susan Ford Subject: RE: [Humanist] 33.726: on using academia.edu (8)  From: David Zeitlyn Subject: Re: [Humanist] 33.725: liberated resources for research training (71)  From: John Levin Subject: Re: [Humanist] 33.726: on using academia.edu (24) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2020-04-03 12:43:11+00:00 From: Ken Friedman Subject: Re: [Humanist] 33.725: liberated resources for research training Dear David, Thanks for your note. I can respond to the questions and issues that you raise, at least as I see them: > a) What is the citation for this please?!! I cannot see full source information nor a DOI (more on this below) It's an unpublished working paper, so there is no DOI. The citation is: Friedman, Ken. 2019. Twelve Principles of Reference and Citation. Research Skills Working Paper. Shanghai: She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. At some point, I plan to rework this into a peer reviewed article for the journal. Then it will get a proper citation and a doi. > b) response to > > 9. Never use second-hand references from other articles or books. Always check cited sources first-hand. > "Never" is a tricky term here: I'd say it's a judgement call. If central to the argument then yes go back to source but if peripheral then it may be acceptable to cite second-hand since time spent chasing that source is in effect a choice not to spend time reading something more central. And when you are citing secondhand my understanding was that one should NOT cite the originating source since you do not know with confidence that the quote is correct: you point to the place you got it from. IMHO, this is one of my twelve principles. I came to it because I have found on many occasions that authors of articles and books are mistaken in their citation and quotation of other sources. If one uses a second-hand source, you are quite right in pointing to the source where you got the information. But the incidence of incorrect citation these days is so great that it is best to check. This is especially the case for well-known sources that one should check. One sees many incorrect second-hand citations where an author states that Albert Einstein, Margaret Mead, Martha Nussbaum, or Clifford Geertz has said something. When I check the documents that are supposedly cited, however, I often find this is not so. I've had much of my library digitised, so it is easy to check whether a key word or phrase appears in the cited source. In some cases, it is clear to me that the citing author in the second-hand source may not even have used the source he or she claims to have used. I've seen this in numerous cases where people cite the first edition of a famous philosopher's collected works, now sixty years out of print, even though most university libraries do not own a copy, and even though it is not possible to find a single copy in any library in some nations. This is because the second edition is far more widely available " and because an important university press published a two-volume collection of this philosopher's most important papers in the past decade or so. Since the most commonly cited articles appear in the two-volume edition, anyone who actually reads them cites the two-volume edition. I also know that there are another half dozen editions that someone who reads the work might cite. But when I see careless citations to the first edition of the collected works, a little sleuthing will usually demonstrate that the citing author hasn't read the actual cited work. In fields marked by this kind of carelessness, I think the best advice to most researchers is never to use second-hand references, but rather to check the original source and use it. That also leads to better work, as reading the original source often prompts new thinking. > c) from 12 Digital sources require a complete reference. A URL or a doi is not sufficient. > > But DOI's are very different from URLs (strictly URIs): indeed as I understand it DOIs were developed in response to linkrot, the way URLs break over time. The idea is that a DOI is unique and invariant so can stand as a shorthand for a complete reference (which is available via doi lookup services) Even though a doi is permanent, it is also a location, and not a reference citation. It is my view that every reference citation should contain the full available information. This is a service to the reader, and it is part of the craft of research. As with any craft, good workmanship is an aspect of good research. By providing full information on each cited source, one permits the reader to decide whether to dig for more information or not. In this respect, I have sometimes been compared to the bandit Tuco played by Eli Wallach in Sergio Leone's 1966 spaghetti western, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. At one point, Tuco says something on the subject of care to the Man with No Name, played by Clint Eastwood. "My father was a very careful man," says Tuco. "He wore a belt and suspenders." As a writer, I'd rather be careful. It seems to me best to give readers all the information they need in one place. As a journal editor, I prefer my authors to be equally careful. That's a decision I am making on behalf of our readers. I may be wrong on this, but I believe that it leads to greater care and thoughtfulness that improves the quality of the journal. We certainly welcome venturous writing and adventurous ideas. If an author wishes to speculate, stating an idea as his or her opinion, we'll permit speculation. We think there is more room for adventure where authors are tight and careful with every fact they provide. Citations are facts. Authors who demonstrate care deserve more leeway when it comes to adventurous ideas. In the Twelve Principles, I recount the story of Albert Einstein's 1905 article on Brownian motion. With relatively few references, he built a careful argument from a phenomenon that was first observed in 1827. This was in great part possible because nearly every physicist and chemist at work in the world was aware of Brownian motion, as well as the physical and chemical facts that Einstein asserted. Einstein's argument was based on evidence known to nearly all of his colleagues, and the key information was readily accessible in many major texts and reference books. Max Planck published this article in Annalen der Physik based on the care and rigorous development of Einstein's article. The article reached an adventurous conclusion. At that time, many of the world's physicists argued against the physical reality of atomic theory. Some believed that atoms were a mathematical convenience in certain calculations, but they argued against the reality of atoms. Within a few years after publication, Einstein's article changed the minds of most of the world's physicists. Nothing that I write promises to have that kind of impact. Nevertheless, I believe that care and rigour in every detail not readily at hand for most readers makes a article stronger. This includes full publishing information for every cited source, rather than requiring readers to go to another source to locate the information. When I studied for my PhD in the early 1970s, some references used only a city of publication. This was a throwback to the really old days when most printing presses were licensed by the crown. To see that a book was published in Venice or Wittenberg meant that it could only have been published by one of two or three presses. By 1970, this had changed. The world had many thousands of publishers. Even so, many journals used the old style " city alone, without the name of the publishing firm. It was, in fact, possible to locate the press using a massive, multi-volume reference book called the Union Catalogue. With author, year, and city, one could find the publisher of any book. Even so, I preferred reference formats that gave me all the information I needed to find the book swiftly. Times have changed, but the use of complete, careful references remains a useful courtesy. That's why this is one of the twelve principles. Others may feel differently on this. I wrote the principles document from my viewpoint. Warm wishes, Ken Ken Friedman, Ph.D., D.Sc. (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | è®¾è®¡ She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the- journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/ Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| Eminent Scholar | College of Design, Art, Architecture, and Planning | University of Cincinnati ||| Email email@example.com | Academia https://tongji.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2020-04-03 10:24:04+00:00 From: Gabriel Egan Subject: Re: [Humanist] 33.726: on using academia.edu Dear HUMANISTS Ken Friedman has generously shared with this list (by email attachment) the materials he previously shared by putting on the Academia.edu. I recommend them to anyone who hasn't read them. I learnt from them and in one detail -- his recommendation that writers put quotation marks around the words in block/indent quotations -- he has changed my mind and I'll be pushing for a change in the collective referencing habits of my field because of the cogent point he makes about how things get mangled in electronic transmission. Ken doesn't see what is dodgy about Academia.edu. One place to start is the ".edu" top-level domain (TLD) name. Because the ".edu" TLD connotes an accredited university, Academia.edu would not now be eligible to register as a ".edu" due to regulations designed to prevent fake academic institutions trying to pass themselves off as legitimate ones. But Academia.edu managed to register as a ".edu" before the regulations were tightened. They have a legal but not a moral right to this TLD, since it undoubtedly misleads users (especially students) into thinking that it is part of the academic community rather than a for-profit corporation. Ken says that he has no website and hence no place to put materials on the open Worldwide Web. If his university doesn't offer him some web space -- most do although they increasingly restrict what we can put there -- then an ordinary webhosting account is worth the minor expense and the slight trouble of learning how to FTP files to it. One doesn't need a fancy looking website to share materials: plain old HTML and a bit of Cascading Stylesheet code -- easy to do and worth learning -- can produce an entirely respectable looking website. One last reason to avoid walled gardens like Academia.edu is that they tend to come and go, and when they go people lose their content. In the 2000s, a lot of musicians put a lot of effort into their MySpace sites only to find that MySpace lost them in a server upgrade last year. The same thing happened 10 years earlier when Geocities was closed. By contrast, truly open websites belong to and are controlled by their makers, who can easily back them up, and they are also archived by The Internet Archive. Regards Gabriel Egan -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2020-04-03 09:54:38+00:00 From: Susan Ford Subject: RE: [Humanist] 33.726: on using academia.edu Hi Ken Does not your university have an open access place to put papers? Cheers Susan -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2020-04-03 09:39:19+00:00 From: David Zeitlyn Subject: Re: [Humanist] 33.725: liberated resources for research training Dear Ken many thanks for making these resources available. Here are a few responses to your "Twelve Principles of Reference and Citation" a) What is the citation for this please?!! I cannot see full source information nor a DOI (more on this below) b) response to 9. Never use second-hand references from other articles or books. Always check cited sources first-hand. and 11. Every source document cited in the text must appear in the reference list. Every item in the reference list must appear in the text. "Never" is a tricky term here: I'd say it’s a judgement call. If central to the argument then yes go back to source but if peripheral then it may be acceptable to cite second-hand since time spent chasing that source is in effect a choice not to spend time reading something more central. And when you are citing secondhand my understanding was that one should NOT cite the originating source since you do not know with confidence that the quote is correct: you point to the place you got it from. c) from 12 Digital sources require a complete reference. A URL or a doi is not sufficient. But DOI's are very different from URLs (strictly URIs): indeed as I understand it DOIs were developed in response to linkrot, the way URLs break over time. The idea is that a DOI is unique and invariant so can stand as a shorthand for a complete reference (which is available via doi lookup services) best wishes davidz -- David Zeitlyn, Professor of Social Anthropology (research). ORCID: 0000-0001-5853-7351 Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology, School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography University of Oxford, 51 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 6PF, UK. http://www.isca.ox.ac.uk/people/professor-david-zeitlyn http://www.mambila.info/ The Virtual Institute of Mambila Studies http://users.ox.ac.uk/~wolf2728/ 2020 Monograph: Mambila Divination: Framing Questions, Constructing Answers (Routledge Studies in Anthropology) London: Routledge. ISBN 9780367199500 A paper on the intellectual genealogy of primatologists: "Perception, prestige and PageRank" David Zeitlyn, Daniel W. Hook | published 28 May 2019 PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216783 Online vizualisation https://livedataoxford.shinyapps.io/DavidZeitlyn/ Oct 2015 open access paper 'Looking Forward, Looking Back' http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02757206.2015.1076813 Vestiges: Traces of Record http://www.vestiges-journal.info/ Open Access Journal -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2020-04-03 08:39:40+00:00 From: John Levin Subject: Re: [Humanist] 33.726: on using academia.edu Dear list, I understand Ken Friedman's defence of academia edu as being the path of least resistance for publishing on the web, even if it is strewn with traps for readers. However, academia edu is now made quite redundant by the free, open, academic-led 'Humanities Commons', which is even easier to both publish on and read from: https://hcommons.org Best, John Levin -- John Levin http://www.anterotesis.com http://twitter.com/anterotesis https://hcommons.org/members/johnlevin/ _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted List posts to: firstname.lastname@example.org List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/ Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php
Editor: Willard McCarty (King's College London, U.K.; Western Sydney University, Australia)
Software designer: Malgosia Askanas (Mind-Crafts)
This site is maintained under a service level agreement by King's Digital Lab.