On 3/20/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/21/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@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.
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.