On "online" research

[bunnyjadwiga]

A faculty member in a metro area commented that they made their students include one resource in their paper bibliographies that wasn't online. I'm reposting my response:

We've had to beg our professors to REMOVE this requirement from their
papers-- we subscribe to 20,000-30,000 journals online through
electronic journal services and only about 4,000 in print, and we were
having to teach the students BAD research habits to find anything
related to their papers in our print journals. Bigger institutions
with larger research collections don't have this problem yet, but I
can see it coming down the pike.

Instead, we teach the students the difference between the subscription
services, with subject indexing, that we have, and the 'open web' and
it's worked out so far-- but that's because we catch them twice in
their first year of college. Changes in the "first year experience"
coming down *our* pike may mess that up.

If I could do one thing as a professional researcher in the SCA, I
would get SCAdians to find out what electronic resources their local
libraries offer, and have them USE those resources, and demand more.
Also, I run into a lot of people who think that once a journal is
electronic it's no longer accessible to non-academics-- but most small
colleges will let you come in and use a public-use computer in the
library to access their electronic journals.

A while back I ran into someone from the Midrealm who was allegedly
marked down for using "Early English Books Online" (a subscription
service) for her herbal research, because it was "Online." I couldn't
decide whether to laugh or cry-- these are scanned microfilms of
multiple versions of extant printed books from the Early printed books
period (1473 to 1700), so it was the closest to primary sources you
could get. In some cases, it's the ONLY way to get access to those
resources as they haven't been reprinted and are in closed special
collections. Only rather rich libraries have access to it, and it's
worth tracking down any libraries in your area that have it that will
let you use it on their computers.

Comments

Re: Not SCA research (per se), but ...

[florentinescot.livejournal.com]

nods. I've seen a couple of instances lately where folks saw a painting (on a publicly accessible web-site) and were grumpy because Other Folks posted the same painting that they did without giving them credit for the find. (and yeah, I was directly involved in one of those). I know that folks have that mind-set, and I try and accommodate them; but I don't understand that mind-set.

And the "who publishes first" isn't just an SCA phenomenon. I'm in Taxonomy -- the ultimate Publish First field!

Re: Not SCA research (per se), but ...

[pearl]

'Publish first' is common everywhere, it's just... it seems to make people go a bit weirder in the SCA. I can't put my finger on what the difference is, but it seems to be a lot less self-confident for SCA folks who feel that without being given credit for finding a pretty picture, they're not as valuable.

I believe I know the re-posting incident you're referring to. And I have to admit, that I wanted to shrug and say 'you put this information in a publicly accessible place, what did you think would happen?' When I was running a website about Baltic stuff (which I need to put back up online really...) I honestly didn't expect because I made the website that I would get some sort of magical credit for what I did. Certainly, I put my name on it to say 'I put all of this together', but that's it.
Obviously people feel differently about this, I wonder if it has much to do with the differences between, say, Arts and Science (undergraduate) training.

In Arts, you put in your bibliography _everything_, including that blog that had lots of cool links to resources that you also whacked into the list.
In Science, you will get marks deducted if you include sources in your bibliography that you didn't directly reference in the text.

It's a complex issue, and probably somewhat off topic. :)

Re: Not SCA research (per se), but ...

[florentinescot.livejournal.com]

You said

I wonder if it has much to do with the differences between, say, Arts and Science (undergraduate) training.

nods thoughtfully. I'll bet you're right. It's the subtle difference between a Bibliography and References.

I'm with you, if I found it in a Public Place, and post the find in A Public Place -- it's yours to run with.

And you're so right about the complexity of the topic. We should probably stop hi-jacking bunnyjadwiga's journal, and finish this discussion elsewhere! :-)

Re: Not SCA research (per se), but ...

[bunnyjadwiga.livejournal.com]

but but but...
I don't mind if you hijack my journal to have this discussion...

Re: Not SCA research (per se), but ...

[florentinescot.livejournal.com]

OK. I've been on other journals where the "owners" didn't want it to go off on Wild Tangents! I suppose if I wasn't a biologist, I would have been a librarian -- it's the taxonomist in me. When I was in the 5th grade, I cataloged all my books with Dewey Decimal numbers .....

Re: Not SCA research (per se), but ...

[florentinescot.livejournal.com]

And to address the references issue ...

One of the things that I wonder about in terms of SCA A&S entries/documentation ...

In the sciences, you do only reference what you actually cite. Only things referenced in the text can be listed as references. And then there's the whole format differences. The CBE style for in-text citations and bibliographic entries is way different from most humanities/APA/Chicago styles. I'm slightly concerned about freaking the judges out!

On the other hand, I'm no longer "afraid" of A&S jusges. I survived prelims and The Defense. :-S