As active researchers and writers, there is often a need—or at least a temptation—to cite ourselves as an authoritative source for a particular point. Whether it is appropriate to do so depends upon the circumstances.

On a personal level, we are a valid source only for events or circumstances that we personally experienced in a cognizant state. We cannot, for example, attest our own birth; although we were physically there, we had not developed cognizance. If we have no other authority, we can only attest that we were taught to celebrate our birth on a particular day of the year.

As researchers, citations to our own published work may or may not be justified. For some historical subjects there is a rich body of literature and a wide range of interpretations. In other instances, a subject may be so narrow that no one else has investigated it to the breadth and depth that we have—if at all. 

Five questions can help us determine whether our own prior work can be appropriately cited as one form of “proof ” for our assertions:

• If we are citing a prior conclusion or proof argument, has that conclusion of ours been vetted and the argument published in a peer-reviewed journal?  Assertions that have never been vetted are generally not considered to be authoritative.
• If we are citing underlying research reports, are those reports publicly available—at, say, a website where they can be immediately accessed and studied in depth?
• Are other authorities available? Is the topic a general one on which multiple people have published, including ourselves? Are opinions compatible, although each naturally will have varying nuances? If so, then citing ourselves may strike our readers as self-promotion. 
• What is the scope and focus of our prior research? Is the topic a highly specialized one that no one else has addressed—say, a quantitative analysis of a community, or an intricately solved identity issue, or a reference work that is not otherwise available? If there is no one else to cite, then a reference to our own work would be entirely appropriate.
• Are our conclusions unique? Did our findings or conclusions correct or challenge other significant publications on the subject? If so, then citations to both would be appropriate.

In sum: if our own prior publications have gone into considerably more depth than our current piece of writing allows, then it would be reasonable to cite our prior work for a more in-depth discussion. We might also cite others who hold a counter view, to offer a balanced perspective.

The post Using One’s Self as a Source – by Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CG, FASG appeared first on Genealogical.com.

Previous posts in this series introduced the concept of layered citations and how they can help us. Researchers also ask a related question:  Do all citations require layers?  No. Here’s a short guide:

Single-layer Citations

In Evidence Style, citations to print-published materials and simple web publications can be handled in a single layer.  For example:

• Books, journal and magazine articles, maps, newspaper items, and other standalone publications, when we consult the physical form, need only a single layer.
• Blogs and websites that create their own material, such as articles and simple databases, require only one layer. 

However, each website item must be carefully analyzed to determine the nature of what we are using. Many websites offer two types of material: (1) material produced in-house, such as databases that serve as indexes to documents; and (2) images of documents housed elsewhere. As a result, some citations to a website may require only one layer, while citations to other databases offered by that same website may require multiple layers. As with all matters related to research, we must analyze each situation and use our judgment.

• Public artifacts that are standalone objects, such as grave markers in a cemetery, can be cited in one layer unless we use images or transcripts online.

This framework allows for multiple sources to be cited within the same reference note.We simply place a period at the end of our citation to each published work, thereby ending that “citation sentence.” Then we begin a new sentence for the next source.  To ensure clarity, Evidence Style does not cite multiple sources within the same citation sentence. (Within the same reference note, yes. Within the same sentence, no.)

Multi-layer Citations

Careful students of history use original documents as the basis for thorough and reliable research. Doing so typically requires multiple layers. The content of those layers is dictated by the manner in which we access the materials: physically or online.

Physical access: Citations to manuscript material that we access in physical form require identification of three things: 

• the document (who, what, when, and where created, followed by the specific page or entry number);
• the organizational scheme in which the document is archived (where maintained);
• the identity and location of that archives (where accessed).

Details for each of these three entities should be grouped in its own layer.Because each layer can have internal commas and other punctuation, the semicolon is again used between layers for a clear separation.

ONLINE ACCESS: Online access to imaged documents requires the use of at least two layers and sometimes three:

• Record Layer: where we identify the original document, as fully as it can be identified from the image itself
• Access Layer: where we identify the website that delivers the images and (often) the specific database through which the images were accessed
• Location Layer (aka “Citing …” Layer): where we report the source information as given by the website—a layer we begin with the words “citing …”

Organization is important in all aspects of research. It’s easy to understand the need for organizing our records so that we (and others) can easily relocate them. Likewise, the organization of our citation details determine whether we (and others) can easily locate a source and—more importantly—whether the essential details are clustered in a way that we understand the meaning of each detail.

The post Citation Tips: Do All Citations Require Layers? By Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG appeared first on Genealogical.com.

Basic Rule 1: We Cite What We Use

This bit of wisdom is one most of us learn the hard way. Nothing, absolutely nothing, helps to keep a researcher out of trouble more-surely than this.  For example:

• If we use an online index to church records, our citation does not cite the church records because we did not use them. We used someone’s index, and it may or may not have read the names and details correctly. That difference matters.
• If we use a published book called Podunk Vital Records, we cite that book. We don’t cite our source as “Podunk Vital Records, Town Clerk’s Office …,” because we have not used the actual vital records. We used someone’s compilation, which not only could err in the extraction process but, as a source type, often includes hints or assertions gleaned from other sources. 
• If we use William Whoever’s History of Podunk and we find a quote from John Jumpstreet’s diary that the author has cited, we don’t borrow his citation and cite John Jumpstreet’s diary as though we personally read it. Our source is Whoever’s History of Podunk, to which we would add a statement that Whoever’s note xxx cites “John Jumpstreet’s Diary.” 

Basic Rule 2: The Common Knowledge Rule

Any statement of fact that is not common knowledge must carry its own individual statement of source. Distinguishing common knowledge from a statement that needs documenting is mostly a matter of common sense. If we state that the Battle of the Bulge began on 16 December 1944, no citations are needed to attest to the validity of that statement or to help others locate information about the event, because details about the battle are ubiquitous. However, a statement that a certain obscure infantryman was killed by enemy fire in the course of that battle would require a citation to a reliable source.

Basic Rule 3: The Velcro Principle—What’s Meant to Stick Together Should Stick Together

Velcro? Yes. Images of that sticky two-part tape, with hooks on one part and loops on the other, help us with our citations. Modern research is often online research. That usually involves citing two different entities for one piece of information: (1) The original source that provided the information and (2) the website that delivered the image.  For clarity, we usually cite each in a different layer. The Velcro Principle Reminds us that all details belonging to each of them must stick together. Details from one should not be mixed with details from the other. For example:

• An imaged document may display an original page number, while the website’s frame around that image may state an image number. The number of the image created by the website cannot be used in place of the document’s own page number, or vice versa. 
• The title of the website’s database can never be substituted for the record title in the layer that identifies the record. Any user’s effort to find that database title within the original record set would fail, because the website’s database title will not exist within the original record set.

Three simple rules. Using them will change our lives as researchers, preventing a host of problems that we don’t anticipate and can rarely fix easily once they occur.

The post Citation Tips: Three Simple Rules to Guide Us, by Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG appeared first on Genealogical.com.

“Six basic rules govern our citation of titles, regardless of the type of record or publication we are using:

1) BOOK, CD, DVD, JOURNAL, MAP, WEBSITE, ETC.

For published stand-alone works, you copy the exact title and put it in italics.

2) MANUSCRIPT FILE, COLLECTION, SERIES, SUB-SERIES & RECORD GROUP

Titles are copied exactly, using headline-style capitalization. File titles may carry quotation marks for clarity; titles of larger record sets do not.

3) NAMED PART OF A PUBLISHED BOOK, CD, JOURNAL, WEBSITE, ETC.

For parts of a published work, such as a chapter in a book, an article in a journal, a song on an album, or a database at a website, you should copy the exact title and put quotation marks around it.

4) TITLED, BUT UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT, REGISTER, ETC.

For an unpublished manuscript or typescript, you should copy the title exactly and put quotation marks around it.

5) UNTITLED, UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT, REGISTER, ETC.

When a manuscript or record book has no title, you should create your own generic description, you do not place your words in italics, because you are not quoting anything. You may want to add an explanation in square editorial brackets.

6) FOREIGN LANGUAGE TITLES

When a work’s title appears in a language other than our own, we have options for describing the record. We may simply copy the title of the document exactly as it appears. Or we may add, after the title, a translation in square editorial brackets. Our translation should appear in roman type, not italics, and it will not carry quotation marks because our translation is not an exact quote. For example:

1. Jean Milfort-Leclerc, Mémoire, ou, Coup-d’oeil rapide sur mes différens voyages et mon séjour dans la nation Creek [Memoir: Or, a Quick Glance at My Different Travels and My Sojourn in the Creek Nation] (Paris: Giguet et Michaud, 1802), 41.”

Guidelines for citations such as the above are what have made Evidence Explained: Citing Historical Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace. Third Edition Revised the leading reference in its field.  For more information about this extraordinary book, click the button below.

The post “Citing Titles: Basic Rules,” by Elizabeth Shown Mills appeared first on Genealogical.com.

Online sources are publications, with the same basic elements as print publications. This core principle applies whether we are using a commercial site, a website created by an individual, or a social-networking site such as Facebook, LinkedIn, or Twitter.

Within this framework, we have just four basic rules to remember:

Rule 1: Most websites are the online equivalent of a book. Therefore, we cite:

• author/creator/owner of the website’s content (if identifiable);

• title of the website;

• type of item (as with a book’s edition data);

• publication data;

• place (URL;

• date posted, updated, copyrighted, or accessed—specify which); and

• specific detail for that citation (page, section, paragraph, keywords, entry, etc.).

Rule 2:  A website that offers multiple items by different creators is the equivalent of a book with chapters by different authors. That calls for two additional items at the beginning of the citation:

• name of the item’s creator (rarely necessary for personal pages);

• title of article, database, image collection, personal social-media page, etc.

Rule 3: A website is a publication, not a repository. Conceptually, the repository is the Internet or the World Wide Web. The distinction matters. When a citation template within our data-management software asks us to identify a repository, we invoke a basic rule covered at 2.19: in published citations, repositories are cited only for manuscript material exclusive to the repository where we used it. Repositories are not cited for published sources. To enter a website’s name as our repository would be to say that the website’s name is not an essential part of the citation. Therefore, the software might automatically omit it in printing out reference notes.

Rule 4: Websites require a thoughtful examination. Identification of authors, creators, and website titles may require scrutiny of not just the relevant page but also its root pages. At each site we use, we should examine its construction and record all information that might help us or someone else relocate the material in the event of a broken link. When we cite material that is available at multiple websites, if all other factors are equal, we should consider which provider is likely to be the most permanent.

The post Citing Online Materials: The Basics, by Elizabeth Shown Mills appeared first on Genealogical.com.

“The range of materials and media in use today defies standardization. When we examine a publication to define the elements that need recording, we should bear in mind that this material commonly has two formats in need of identification:

• most such material originated in manuscript or book format—whether in modern times or antiquity;
• most such material is now being published in a new format by a firm or an agency that is not the original creator.

“Therefore, our citation should do the following:

• distinguish between image copies and other derivatives, such as abstracts, transcripts, and information extracted into databases (see glossary for these terms);
• credit properly the original creator;
• credit properly the producer of the film or electronic publication;
• identify clearly the nature of the material;
• identify the film or electronic publication completely enough for others to locate it;
• cite the specific place (page, frame, etc.) on the roll, fiche, or database at which we found the relevant detail; and
• cite the date on which the microform or electronic data set was created (if that information is provided), updated, or accessed—as well as the date of the relevant record.

“Some publishers of film and electronic reproductions supply a preface informing us that they obtained their data from another firm or individual. Even so, to analyze the reliability of their material we also need to know:

• the identity of the original compiler (individual or agency) who first assembled that data set;
• the original source(s) from which the data were taken;
• whether a database entry represents full or partial extraction from those sources; or
• whether it was generated from materials randomly encountered by the original compiler.

“Tracking the provenance (origin) of material of this type can be difficult. A currently marketed database may have been purchased from a firm no longer in existence, which may have bought its information from a book compiler, who may have assembled materials randomly published elsewhere. Such a database could be of radically different quality from one issued by, say, a learned society using skilled copyists to extract every document in a record set or an image collection created by a company that contracts with an archive to reproduce an entire record series.

“If our attempts to track the origin of the material are unsuccessful, we should say so and explain the efforts we made. This will help us and others avoid unnecessary repetition of the same. When we carefully report our steps, we or a user of our work may be able later to plug some of the gaps in our research process or our findings.”

Publisher’s Note: Evidence Explained is the most comprehensive work on the proper citation of historical and genealogical sources available. For more information about this reference book, please click the button below.

The post Citing Derivatives & Imaged Sources: The Basics, by Elizabeth Shown Mills appeared first on Genealogical.com.