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.
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.