Logos HAS to do better with its bibliographic material...

Including both dates would make the citation erroneous. As annoying as it is (especially for library management), the proper form is to cite the date of the edition; the only time you include both dates is if it is a reprint.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/700828#Comment_700828

Including both dates would make the citation erroneous. As annoying as it is (especially for library management), the proper form is to cite the date of the edition; the only time you include both dates is if it is a reprint.

I don't know, maybe I have a different definition for what "erroneous" and "proper" are, but I don't agree. Maybe I have a different idea of what the "citation" is supposed to effect, too. You see, I'm not citing Logos. I'm citing Adam Clarke. Yeah, they repackaged what he said, but he still said it when he said it, and one of the more important bits of info I want to have available to me as a reader is WHEN Joe Author said what he said. I don't give a rip when Whozit rewrapped it with their own bow. I my view, the error is not including the original publish date. As far as proper goes, that is a committee decision, and as most of us know, there are dozens of committees out there, all pushing their own version of proper.

Rosie Perera

The title page of this edition says "A NEW EDITION, WITH THE AUTHOR’S FINAL CORRECTIONS"; I hardly think that the author's final corrections didn't make it into publication until 2014. I'm sure Logos merely digitized an earlier "new edition" of this and called it their own. They might have fixed some typos or whatever, which might legitimate calling it a 2014 edition. But the rules on when digitizing constitutes a truly new edition are very fuzzy. And that title page as it stands looks remarkably like an edition from the 19th century, not like a 21st century edition. "PUBLISHED BY FAITHLIFE CORPORATION / BELLINGHAM, WA / 2014" notwithstanding. It looks very out of place there.

Methinks this is more likely the accurate publication date of this edition:

Perhaps Faithlife didn't know what to do with the fact that no publisher was listed, just "London" -- so they felt they had to put themselves in as the publisher, and then of course 1836 wouldn't work because they didn't exist back then.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/700914#Comment_700914

Including both dates would make the citation erroneous. As annoying as it is (especially for library management), the proper form is to cite the date of the edition; the only time you include both dates is if it is a reprint.

I don't know, maybe I have a different definition for what "erroneous" and "proper" are, but I don't agree. Maybe I have a different idea of what the "citation" is supposed to effect, too. You see, I'm not citing Logos. I'm citing Adam Clarke. Yeah, they repackaged what he said, but he still said it when he said it, and one of the more important bits of info I want to have available to me as a reader is WHEN Joe Author said what he said. I don't give a rip when Whozit rewrapped it with their own bow. I my view, the error is not including the original publish date. As far as proper goes, that is a committee decision, and as most of us know, there are dozens of committees out there, all pushing their own version of proper.

The date of each volume can be found on the product page.

https://www.logos.com/product/16526/the-works-of-adam-clarke

I don't know what the resource information states since I don't have the set nor do I wish to have it, but it is available.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/700915#Comment_700915

The title page of this edition says "A NEW EDITION, WITH THE AUTHOR’S FINAL CORRECTIONS"; I hardly think that the author's final corrections didn't make it into publication until 2014. I'm sure Logos merely digitized an earlier "new edition" of this and called it their own. They might have fixed some typos or whatever, which might legitimate calling it a 2014 edition. But the rules on when digitizing constitutes a truly new edition are very fuzzy. And that title page as it stands looks remarkably like an edition from the 19th century, not like a 21st century edition. "PUBLISHED BY FAITHLIFE CORPORATION / BELLINGHAM, WA / 2014" notwithstanding. It looks very out of place there.

Methinks this is more likely the accurate publication date of this edition:

Perhaps Faithlife didn't know what to do with the fact that no publisher was listed, just "London" -- so they felt they had to put themselves in as the publisher, and then of course 1836 wouldn't work because they didn't exist back then.

I think Clarke died in 1836, so that probably isn't accurate either. I think the range I gave in the OP is probably correct. I found it on the internet, and it accounts for the span of years a multi-volume work would take one man to produce.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/700914#Comment_700914

I don't know, maybe I have a different definition for what "erroneous" and "proper" are, but I don't agree. Maybe I have a different idea of what the "citation" is supposed to effect, too. You see, I'm not citing Logos. I'm citing Adam Clarke. Yeah, they repackaged what he said, but he still said it when he said it, and one of the more important bits of info I want to have available to me as a reader is WHEN Joe Author said what he said. I don't give a rip when Whozit rewrapped it with their own bow. I my view, the error is not including the original publish date. As far as proper goes, that is a committee decision, and as most of us know, there are dozens of committees out there, all pushing their own version of proper.

Most users need their citations to match one of the following

the style guide required by their educational institution
the style guide required by the journal or publisher
their preferred style guide shaped by the above

It is impractical to expect Faithlife to support personal preference. It is, however, reasonable to ask that the metadata include an "original publication date" as a separate piece of data. I know it has been requested in the past but don't know if it is on user voice.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/700921#Comment_700921

The title page of this edition says "A NEW EDITION, WITH THE AUTHOR’S FINAL CORRECTIONS"; I hardly think that the author's final corrections didn't make it into publication until 2014. I'm sure Logos merely digitized an earlier "new edition" of this and called it their own. They might have fixed some typos or whatever, which might legitimate calling it a 2014 edition. But the rules on when digitizing constitutes a truly new edition are very fuzzy. And that title page as it stands looks remarkably like an edition from the 19th century, not like a 21st century edition. "PUBLISHED BY FAITHLIFE CORPORATION / BELLINGHAM, WA / 2014" notwithstanding. It looks very out of place there.

Methinks this is more likely the accurate publication date of this edition:

Perhaps Faithlife didn't know what to do with the fact that no publisher was listed, just "London" -- so they felt they had to put themselves in as the publisher, and then of course 1836 wouldn't work because they didn't exist back then.

I think Clarke died in 1836, so that probably isn't accurate either. I think the range I gave in the OP is probably correct. I found it on the internet, and it accounts for the span of years a multi-volume work would take one man to produce.

The point is, this digital edition comes from a print edition that was, at the time of its publication, a "new edition" that had been updated "with the author's final corrections" -- they must have known they were his "final" corrections to have called them that, so it would stand to reason that it was published in the year of his death, using whatever notes he'd handed over to the publisher before he died. So that would be the edition that users would need to be citing, though I believe some style guidelines prefer that you also include the date of the digital edition that reproduced that print edition. I don't know of any that prefer you to only give the digital edition date, but I might be uninformed about that. I don't know them all.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/700926#Comment_700926

Chicago, Turabian, APA and MLA all say that the only time you include the original date is when a book is a reprint, but not a new edition. Logos seems to consider their products new editions, so including the original date would be an error in every major handbook used for biblical studies. David, what style guide do you use where it is acceptable to include original publication dates for a new edition? Since Logos is preparing citations which I will then use in formal work, I want it to be correct, not convenient.

The metadata should include the original publication date, and ideally I could create a custom bibliographic format for personal notes ($OriginalDate, $Author, $Title, $ResourceType - $PageCited), where things might be useful for me which would not be generally. However, in the absence of an advanced feature like this, Logos is providing exactly what it says it is; bibliographic material corresponding to various style guides to be used in footnotes or bibliographies.

Tim Finlay

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/701087#Comment_701087

What about SBL Handbook of Style, which is the industry standard for those doing scholarship in Biblical Studies? For the reasons stated by other people above, in scholarship it is often highly relevant when a particular work was originally written.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/701087#Comment_701087

Chicago, Turabian, APA and MLA all say that the only time you include the original date is when a book is a reprint, but not a new edition. Logos seems to consider their products new editions, so including the original date would be an error in every major handbook used for biblical studies

But that's what they say when a print edition book is a new edition vs. a reprint. What do they think a digital rendering that is faithfully accurate to the print edition that it comes from is? Isn't that equivalent to a reprint, whether the digital publisher who produces it thinks of it that way or not?

Turabian 7th ed. says that for e-book versions of print books, you should cite the print edition and then say what the e-book format of it was. The print-based publisher gets the credit for being the publisher, and the creator of the e-edition is merely an add-on. Logos/Faithlife might think more highly of itself than that, because it provides value added with all its tagging. But the essential content of the book that you'd be citing is the same as that in the print edition, unless Faithlife actually published the book (as in their Lexham titles).

I don't have digital versions of any of the other style guides so I can't easily check what they have to say.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/701121#Comment_701121

What about SBL Handbook of Style, which is the industry standard for those doing scholarship in Biblical Studies? For the reasons stated by other people above, in scholarship it is often highly relevant when a particular work was originally written.

Which is precisely why I suggested that Logos make it available just a few days ago.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/701087#Comment_701087

Chicago, Turabian, APA and MLA all say that the only time you include the original date is when a book is a reprint, but not a new edition. Logos seems to consider their products new editions, so including the original date would be an error in every major handbook used for biblical studies. David, what style guide do you use where it is acceptable to include original publication dates for a new edition? Since Logos is preparing citations which I will then use in formal work, I want it to be correct, not convenient.

The metadata should include the original publication date, and ideally I could create a custom bibliographic format for personal notes ($OriginalDate, $Author, $Title, $ResourceType - $PageCited), where things might be useful for me which would not be generally. However, in the absence of an advanced feature like this, Logos is providing exactly what it says it is; bibliographic material corresponding to various style guides to be used in footnotes or bibliographies.

I think Rosie probably addressed this already from a different angle, but I'm going to give my take on this issue. In my view, a reprint is anything that doesn't add to the content of the original work. While what Logos does (in most situations) is certainly value-added, Logos isn't actually adding textual content to most of the author's works that they offer. They certainly do make what we have come to call "Logos editions" as opposed to "Vyrso additions", and we understand that includes a significant amount of value-added hyperlinking and such. In my view, though, that isn't a new edition, even if it is referred to as a Logos edition. In other words, Logos editions ARE reprints with added value. A new edition is constituted by the original author adding new content. In my view, even when a publisher gets a 2nd party to write an introduction or commentary on a work that will be published as an addendum to the work, that does not rise to the level of a new edition. In such a case, two dates would be appropriate: one for the original work (which could be a first, second, third, or subsequent edition), and one that gives the date for the publication of the additional material (introduction, commentary, etc.).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/701451#Comment_701451

I think that is the point. As much as we might come to believe that a Logos edition is a reprint (especially given the refusal to correct obvious typos without the permission of the publisher), the citation lists it as a Logos edition. The difference between a reprint, a revised edition and a new edition can be quite subjective and is up to the publisher; they seem to have elected to call some books "Logos Editions." This is not consistent. The Logos created citation for "the Cross of Christ" is with respect to the print edition. I would probably add that it is the Logos version, as Rosie points out. Apparently the changes to some books (or maybe the fact that PD books can be listed as a new edition more easily) has caused some things to be treated as a new edition. My point is just that, as currently described, adding a second date would make the citation incorrect for formal use. To cite a book as a Logos edition and to include 1880 as the original date, with 2015 next, is to say that Logos produced the book in 1880 and reprinted it in 2015.

[I do not have the SBL handbook, so I could not look that one up. I am not sure what it requires for new editions.]

Tom Reynolds

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/701836#Comment_701836

Here's what the SBL Style Handbook 1999 says about reprinted books:

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/701856#Comment_701856

What about new editions?

Tom Reynolds

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/701862#Comment_701862

It only mentions revised editions which are pretty straightforward. There was a 2nd ed of the SBL Style manual published last fall but I don't have that here. It may have added info about digital books. Regardless, if in doubt it sends you to the Chicago Manual so that may be relevant here.

7.2.1 5 A REVISED EDITION

87 James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3d ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), xxi.

Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3d ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

56 Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (rev. and enl. ed.; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 81.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. A History of Prophecy in Israel. Rev. and enl. ed. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996.

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/701867#Comment_701867

This resource proved to be a tricky one for us. When original publication metadata is available we use it. In this case, the veracity of the metadata could not be verified because we were unable to acquire a full print run by the same publisher. We felt it was safer and more accurate to use a generate a reprint citation.

The request for an original publication date metadata field has been noted and is being considered.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/702663#Comment_702663

Anything and everything that can be done on this front across the board is appreciated.

Actually, I do have a question about these auto-generated bibliographs. Are they sacrosanct? Inviolable? Or can they be safely tweaked if they are perceived to be lacking in some fashion? Am I to face legal wrath-from-on-Bellingham if I fiddle with the info?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/703189#Comment_703189

Fiddle all you want as long as they meet the recognition of copyright obligations.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/703203#Comment_703203

Fiddle all you want as long as they meet the recognition of copyright obligations.

Certainly, but I sense there is whiff of "racket" in this whole "style guides" mumbo jumbo. I can't quite tell what reason there would be for more than one kind of style, with perhaps an addendum for specialties like law and medicine. I'm not sure how necessary that would be, though. The concerns with bibliographic content are pretty basic--identification for copyright and location purposes. I see why a detailed format is helpful...but dozens of them? And the reasons for many are pretty lame--this one is for research papers for schools, this is for professional publications, this one is for journals that publish on the second Tuesday of the month, and what not. I haven't yet encountered an example of what supposedly changes in these various scenarios that would require an entirely revised, reconceptualized, and reconstituted set of rules that cover the exact same information.

Just one of my pet peeves, I guess. I've got plenty of them. If someone wants to explain this and thus lighten my pet peeve baggage, I'd appreciate the kindness.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I realize the real reason these various manuals exist is that these guides are huge cash cows for their respective publishers. I'm wondering if there is any attempt to justify this Balkanization of publishing rule books with actual necessary reasons for the differences.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/703226#Comment_703226

Certainly, but I sense there is whiff of "racket" in this whole "style guides" mumbo jumbo. I can't quite tell what reason there would be for more than one kind of style, with perhaps an addendum for specialties like law and medicine. I'm not sure how necessary that would be, though. The concerns with bibliographic content are pretty basic--identification for copyright and location purposes. I see why a detailed format is helpful...but dozens of them? And the reasons for many are pretty lame--this one is for research papers for schools, this is for professional publications, this one is for journals that publish on the second Tuesday of the month, and what not. I haven't yet encountered an example of what supposedly changes in these various scenarios that would require an entirely revised, reconceptualized, and reconstituted set of rules that cover the exact same information.

Just one of my pet peeves, I guess. I've got plenty of them. If someone wants to explain this and thus lighten my pet peeve baggage, I'd appreciate the kindness.

Why are there different clause visualizations? Why are there different morphologies? There are usually several commonalities to these "duplications":

Different styles emphasize different aspects making them better/worse for particular applications
Different basic theories being implemented
Tradition - different universities or nationalities established standard independently and don't wish to change but rather continue doing it the way that seems natural to them i.e. they grew up with it
Personal preference ... I always prefer the style that I think will take the least work given my notes

What is critical, however, it that whatever style is used, I can pick up a journal or book and quickly set appropriate expectations -- otherwise I waste too much time tracking down the bibliographic data I need. I personally run into this when reading psychology papers. On the other hand, my college roommate (who was a psychology major turned lawyer) would have been completely baffled by the "standard abbreviations" that were familiar to me.

Would it be possible to devise an acceptable single system? Yes, but the pain of moving users to it far exceeds the benefits.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/703229#Comment_703229

the pain of moving users to it far exceeds the benefits.

Seeing as I have at various times been required to use about half-a-dozen of these formats over the years, which included having to master the negligible differences of each (whatever they were), I will ask you to so very kindly "speak for yourself'. [;)]

I always prefer the style that I think will take the least work given my notes

However, I can grant you power of attorney on this point. I fully concur. I'm beginning to get a vision...

yes...yes!

DP Style!!

I'd market it, but I'm guessing it's a pretty small niche. [:P]

Jim

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/703229#Comment_703229

I have a general question on this topic. I'm reading a book whose citation is

D. A. Carson, Ed., Right with God: Justification in the Bible and the World, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992).

However the book is actually a group of long articles by 13 different authors with an intro by Carson. When I copy something to my Logos notes, the accompanying citation is as above. It never references the title of the article nor it's author.

Perhaps this is normal for such a citation, but I'd prefer to have the actual author and his article mentioned in the citation. Is this an error on Logos' part or normal practice?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/703661#Comment_703661

Logos has started handling these at the article level but has not completed retrofitting the tagging on all resources.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/703661#Comment_703661

I have a general question on this topic. I'm reading a book whose citation is

D. A. Carson, Ed., Right with God: Justification in the Bible and the World, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992).

However the book is actually a group of long articles by 13 different authors with an intro by Carson. When I copy something to my Logos notes, the accompanying citation is as above. It never references the title of the article nor it's author.

Perhaps this is normal for such a citation, but I'd prefer to have the actual author and his article mentioned in the citation. Is this an error on Logos' part or normal practice?

Just add in the author's name and the title of the article "in …, D. A. Carson, ed." I never bother to mention that it's an electronic edition since (at least supposedly) the Logos edition conforms to the original print article.

Jim

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/703674#Comment_703674

Just add in the author's name and the title of the article

That's just what I've been doing. But it means I have to scroll to the chapter heading to grab that info or save it somewhere and copy/paste each time I save something from the article. As I'm reading it, I save some excerpt in a note file and perhaps add my own comments for later use.

I'm not well versed in the form of citations, but I seem to remember that one form of includes the actual author of the work when it is part of a larger collection.

Sarel Slabbert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/703931#Comment_703931

I have a question that is related but a bit off-topic. Please indulge me. I have learned that when you quote from a book/article and the original author made a typo, you MUST quote his typo with the words [sic] next to it. So what happens if I use a Logos resource with a typo in an article/dissertation and Logos update the resource later on? In print books typos is corrected in next editions, so the original quote remains in the edition you used.

Also, how do I determine if the error is in the original book, or an error on the side of Logos? Just wondering.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/703939#Comment_703939

I have a question that is related but a bit off-topic. Please indulge me. I have learned that when you quote from a book/article and the original author made a typo, you MUST quote his typo with the words [sic] next to it. So what happens if I use a Logos resource with a typo in an article/dissertation and Logos update the resource later on? In print books typos is corrected in next editions, so the original quote remains in the edition you used.

Also, how do I determine if the error is in the original book, or an error on the side of Logos? Just wondering.

Unless Logos itself tells you whether a typo was in the original or not (surely a daunting task to respond to every typo report), I would assume that you would need to find a print edition to check it out. An alternative might be to find another location in the text which you can use which does not contain the typo (lots of luck with that).

JAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/703939#Comment_703939

...how do I determine if the error is in the original book, or an error on the side of Logos

As per George find and compare the corresponding print edition.

So what happens if I use a Logos resource with a typo in an article/dissertation and Logos update the resource later on?

Each Faithlife resource is uniquely identified, for updates a new unlikely identified file is released.

Sarel Slabbert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/703954#Comment_703954

Each Faithlife resource is uniquely identified, for updates a new unlikely identified file is released.

Ok, but can I switch back to the un-updated (sorry for the clumsy word) version after the update?

JAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/703985#Comment_703985

Very short answer is a qualified yes, you can use older resource files. I'm sorry I can't provide a methodical how to at this time - probably not best for this thread anyhow.

Sarel Slabbert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/703997#Comment_703997

Very short answer is a qualified yes, you can use older resource files. I'm sorry I can't provide a methodical how to at this time - probably not best for this thread anyhow.

[Y] Thanks. Do not want to hijack the thread any longer. [6] Will look around for more info.

Jim

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/703939#Comment_703939

I have a question that is related but a bit off-topic.

What a great question. And I don't see it as off-topic. In fact I see it as relevant to the original post in this thread.

A Logos edition is a real published edition of literature that stands on its own regardless of the original. It is no different from a translation of a work into another language. I also see similarity between a Logos edition and online content in that both are digital and hence more easily changed than print or film media. For citations of online material the MLA style requires "All citations should include the medium of publication and the date the content was accessed." which seems quite rational to me. So it seems to me that every Logos citation should contain information about Logos' release of the electronic form including the date.

For a book I'm studying in Logos, Logos gives this citation: Carson, D. A., ed. Right with God: Justification in the Bible and the World. Electronic ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992. However in the Library page Logos says the book was originally published in 1992 and electronically produced in 2003. First of all the citation is wrong. It reads as if Baker Books created an Electronic Edition in 1992. In addition this book has a large number of typos, for example numerous places where it has "Genesis" instead of "Gentiles" so I'm sure it will go through a number of revisions and I'm just glad I don't have to formally quote it somewhere.

On the other hand this citation: John Bunyan, Justification by an Imputed Righteousness. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2006). does not mention the original date of print publication and the Logos library page says that it was 2006. Does that mean it was previously unpublished? Or does it mean Logos doesn't know when it was published? Or is there an other reason?

So it does appear that there is inconsistency and perhaps some misleading information in Logos' citations and I hope that as a publishing house they will find a useful fix.