Digital Scholarly Integrity

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Jim Milles says:

    One fairly small point: I would consider Hein Online, not Westlaw or Lexis, the current gold standard for digital law journals, especially now that many journals are eliminating the two-year lag time that they initially required.

    A larger point: you are referring to the problem of versioning, which is far from resolved, but there are certainly librarians, information scientists, archivists, and other scholars who are taking this question very seriously and trying to develop standards.

  2. Frank says:

    As for the question of “revising oneself;” many online sites (like Slate) and blogs now have a “strikethrough” feature, which lets you edit old work by putting a line through the offending passage and putting new content after it.

    I think wiki technology will soon make this a little more manageable. A wiki-page can keep track of all revisions, dates of revisions, revisers, etc. I hope sometime this fall to turn one of my pieces on Google into a wiki, so it can be continually updated.

    By the way, for an example of a book that’s entirely open for revision after comments, this is an interesting project started at the Institute for the Future of the Book.

  3. Charlie says:

    Frank sounds like he has a good solution — the tracking will discourage obssessive corrections and solve the problem of integrity, assuming it can track when a change is made. I wonder what are the odds of a Lexis or a Westlaw adopting this approach. If such techniques were used, “last visited on ___” citations would become standard.