Many journals in their Instructions to authors contain contradictory statements such as:
1) Provide sufficient detail to allow the work to be reproduced
AND:
2) Methods already published should be indicated by a reference
When confronted with this contradiction it is important to give priority to the first part: Always give sufficient detail to allow the work to be reproduced.
Do you agree on this?
Hi Emilio
I just can not comprehend the contradiction , could you please clarify ?
1) You give full details of the method
or:
2) Just give a reference
There is no problem when the reference is easy to find and read. The problem comes when the reference is not easy to find. For example a book edited in 1950.
The question is in such a case: Is it enough with the reference or should you explain the method in detail?
I think this entry can offer some solution :
https://researcherone.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/the-complex-nature-of-older-or-outdated-sources/
this is a part of the discussion you might find useful:
Still, although authorities on a given topic are usually given the benefit-of-the-doubt, like Franklin mentioned above (after all, authorities would know, wouldn’t they?), additional research will always be necessary to (1) assess the validity of any source or resource considered, especially if it is older, and (2) to see if further updates have subsequently been made on it. In the case where an older authority goes uncontested or continues to serve as an overall authority on a given subject, researchers refer to that source first and then “branch out,” which is a third pattern of researching.
Dear Dr Alimi,
Thank you for your participation in the question and for the reference given in the last answer. It contains interesting points regarding old references.
I will mention below some ideas taken from it: Some of them make a good depart for discussion:
1. The rule for conducting research is that sources go back no earlier than ten, sometimes fifteen, years prior. This is a commonly known and employed rule that covers pretty much all kinds of research in virtually every field of expertise.
2. However, there are many circumstances where older sources are not only preferable, but necessary, such as research accounts illustrating the origins or historical development of a phenomenon...
3. Still, although authorities on a given topic are usually given the benefit-of-the-doubt, like Franklin mentioned above (after all, authorities would know, wouldn’t they?), additional research will always be necessary to (1) assess the validity of any source or resource considered, especially if it is older, and (2) to see if further updates have subsequently been made on it. In the case where an older authority goes uncontested or continues to serve as an overall authority on a given subject, researchers refer to that source first and then “branch out,” which is a third pattern of researching.
The second part of the article concentrates mainly on historical research. Such as for example:
"...Still, there are sources that remain significant and hold their power over time and really never weaken. These sources include (but are not limited to) literary texts, such as the works of Shakespeare, the books of Dante and the poetry of Walt Whitman..."
and:
"Any of the types of the sources mentioned above are especially important if they are the subject being researched,..."
But in experimental science, in contrast to history, research does not involve the investigation on specific documents that must be permanently held as references
The contents of an old article that is used as a source of methods need to be explained in detail and commented in front of new developments.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publisher