On 21/03/07, Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Columbus's logs are primary historical sources -
they are a record of his
observations and his interpretation of his observations. Scientific
research papers present and analyse data, and draw some conclusions from the
data. Primary sources are not the raw data, nor are they Columbus's
readings of the angles of the stars or the depth of the water. Court
rulings are primary sources, not the policeman's log books.
No. Research publications are primary sources. Review papers are secondary
sources. Textbooks tend to be secondary or tertiary sources.
Research publications should hope not to be entirely primary sources.
If a scientist makes a claim based on their data then the data is the
primary source, and their claims are secondary to it. What difference
does it make as to whether the publishing scientist makes a conclusion
or a review paper makes a conclusion?
Peter Ansell