In response to specific discipline related questions, one
often gets thoughtful responses that may merit use in
presentation or publication. I wonder if the academic type
folks are accepting Internet responses to such questions as
references in articles or manuscripts. In some instances it
may be "state of the art" information that is not subject to
validation or verification. In other instances, it could be
pure bunk that sounds really good. How do folks view such
feedback in the context of more formal communication, like
presentations and publications?
Back in the dark ages when I was in Grad School, the rule
was if you haven't read it (critically) in peer-reviewed
literature, you shouldn't use it in your publication. But
times change. In the last couple of decades it seems to me,
folks are ever more willing to reference almost anything
that fits with their manuscript or perspective.
As a Fed who often writes grey stuff with strange
references, if any, I have sort of lost my feel for the
academic perspective on things like this. However, as an
editor for a couple of scientific journals, I always
appreciate manuscripts that refer only to solid scientific
publications. I admit to being a real "old fashioned" type
person.
Now with the information age, are academics expanding the
borders of acceptable references to include internet
communications? Many folks (myself included) at times will
refer in writing to things that others have simply said, by
using a reference akin to: (U. Knowsalot, Personal
Communication, 1994). Does something like (I. Hopeitstrue,
MIT, Internet Communication, 1994) have any value to readers
of a manuscript?
|