On 3/20/07, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/21/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Scientific papers are primary sources.
Scientific papers are secondary sources. The experimental or
observational data that the papers draw on are the primary sources.
The data is usually published in the paper, so the paper is the primary
source.
If you want to split hairs like that, then yes, insofar as the paper
merely reproduces the data, then it's a primary source. The analysis
of the data and the conclusions drawn from the data in the paper are
secondary material.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com
No, don't split hairs here. The original research is not the data table,
but the conclusions and analysis drawn from the data. The experimental
results are just results, they're not research without the paper, without
the conclusions, without the analysis.
Data is an ex-situ fossil--iIf I have a fossil and I don't know where it was
found, it's worthless. Research is not an ex-situ fossil, it's an in-situ
fossil. It's worth something.
Research is scientific inquiry, it's not random pieces of data out of
context. Data tables and uninterpreted experimental results are not
research.
KP