Dear Logos: Please stop putting "Logos Bible Software" as the publisher of existing public-domain works

Page 1 of 3 (43 items) 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 42 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 13417
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Posted: Fri, Aug 9 2013 4:19 AM

I thought this problem was going away, but it's back. The problem is public domain books having "Logos Bible Software" and their publisher, and a modern date in the year of publication. This is frustrating when the books are in fact facsimile copies of an earlier edition. When we sort by date in our library, and when we cite these works, we don't want Logos Bible Software 2010 appearing.

The most recent culprit were the Poor Man's Commentaries which were released a few weeks ago. They should be dated around 1815-16, with a publisher of London: Williams and Son (or the correct edition of 1823, London: Sherwodd, Jones, Gilbert and Piper). What's doubly annoying here is that you've stripped the publication information from the beginning of the volume!

But it's publications from 2011 and earlier that are the real problem, as there are literally hundreds of volumes such as History of the English Baptists, Calvin's Commentaries, etc.

Some works have Logos as the publisher, but the original publication date (e.g. Charles's Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament). That's better for library filtering, but it's still not OK, particularly when the library says 1913, whilst the bibliographic citation says 2004. 

By the way, it's fine to have Logos as the publisher when you  have done a lot of work on the volume. So Vos's Reformed Dogmatics rightly has Logos Bible Software (2013), as that's been newly translated/edited. I'm not complaining about that. 

Posts 29474
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 4:27 AM

Yes +1 

macOS, iOS & iPadOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 2964
tom | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 4:44 AM

I disagree, if Logos does the work to create the electronic edition, then Logos should get the credit as the publisher of the electronic version of the work of art we are using.

Posts 13417
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 4:48 AM

tom:
I disagree, if Logos does the work to create the electronic edition, then Logos should get the credit as the publisher of the electronic version of the work of art we are using.

So all the books in our library should have Bellingham: Logos Bible Software (2011) in the metadata? How is that useful?

Posts 29474
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 4:49 AM

tom:

I disagree, if Logos does the work to create the electronic edition, then Logos should get the credit as the publisher of the electronic version of the work of art we are using.

... But Logos doesn't get credit for books still in copyright that they create the electronic version of...

I agree with how Mark stated it. If Logos is doing something to the text, then they should be listed as the publisher... But not if they are just bringing in a public domain work "as is."

macOS, iOS & iPadOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 2837
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 4:53 AM

Mark I'm with you on this Yes

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 1812
Ken McGuire | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 4:54 AM

I more than understand why we want the original dates for works listed - I really do.  But I have found in creating the personal books I have made that in transcribing from printed matter to an ebook, I have to make decisions so that it is really almost a new edition.  Many times for rePRINTS of old works, there is a new publisher listed and new date as well.  The better editions include the source information, too, admittedly.

Also many theological works have one publisher in one country and another in another country.  So if Eerdmans (just for example) publishes a work from SPCK, is Eerdmans wrong for listing themselves as the publishers of the US edition?  If that is fine, then why can't Logos do this?

SDG

Ken McGuire

The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann

L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials

L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze

Posts 2279
Andy | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 4:59 AM

In my opinion, where Logos are, in effect, digitising facsimiles of earlier editions, the original publication date and publication details should be retained.

Posts 13417
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 5:48 AM

Ken McGuire:

I have found in creating the personal books I have made that in transcribing from printed matter to an ebook, I have to make decisions so that it is really almost a new edition

That's interesting  - what sort of decisions do you make? Personally, I always try and retain exactly what is there in the original (even typos), which is Logos' normal practice, too.

Ken McGuire:
Many times for rePRINTS of old works, there is a new publisher listed and new date as well.

I accept that. But we know that Logos Bible Software is the 'new publisher' (at least since 2011, or whenever it was they took over publishing), but if Logos wants to add an "Electronic Publisher" column, that's fine by me. There is already an "Electronic Publishing Date" column in the library that Logos use. (The existence of that column really does show Logos is doing it wrong if they put the electronic date in the "Publication date" column.)

Posts 1875
Alan Macgregor | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 6:03 AM

I take the earlier arguments on board and would like to put in my tuppence worth, for this is an issue which has caused me a fair degree of pondering and extra work in editing Logos' default citations in my own academic writing.

For me the problem arises when one cites Logos' "electronic reprints", for that is what many Logos works are, in academic papers. The whole point of citation in academic papers is that one's academic peers can refer to the original text for themselves and see how one has arrived at one's use of the citation and evaluate it properly. If that citation refers by default to the electronic version of the text, then it may be difficult for non-Logos-using academics to evaluate the citation.

For me the criterion regarding defining a work as being reprinted or published is that that former has merely been scanned and tagged with metadata, whereas publishing should imply that something more has been done to the text, for example re-editing or retranslation. If necessary the citation should follow the format of citing the print original and including the electronic edition in the initial citation of the work.

Every blessing

Alan

iMac Retina 5K, 27": 3.6GHz 8-Core Intel Core i9; 16GB RAM;MacOS 10.15.5; 1TB SSD; Logos 8

MacBook Air 13.3": 1.8GHz; 4GB RAM; MacOS 10.13.6; 256GB SSD; Logos 8

iPad Pro 32GB WiFi iOS 13.5.1

iPhone 8+ 64GB iOS 13.5.1

Posts 47
JD | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 6:08 AM

Yes.

It is academically unacceptable to omit the original publisher and the author in North American colleges and universities.  If something is legal it does not mean it is proper.  I would ask politely Logos' employees to consult standard manuals for writers (Turabian, Chicago, SBL).  In sum, even a short undergraduate term paper would have been rejected without proper citation.

Posts 164
Reimar Vetne | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 6:08 AM

I agree completely with you, Mark. This is a very strange and frustrating practice by Logos.

Logos already has our unconditional love and admiration. We are not in danger of forgetting to Logos our gratitude for bringing all the various resources you have into your digital library -  copyrighted or public domain. I certainly am not in that danger. I am your biggest fan. Adding Logos as the publisher cannot increase my love and respect for your efforts - it is already high as it is.

For the sake of easy reference to when a book was written, and for the sake of correct citations in footnotes and bibliographies of articles and books we write, it is far more useful to have the original publication information in the records. It saves us from having to manually Google and search the internet for the original publication data.

Posts 47
JD | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 6:14 AM

YesYesYes

Posts 1812
Ken McGuire | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 6:16 AM

Mark Barnes:

Ken McGuire:

I have found in creating the personal books I have made that in transcribing from printed matter to an ebook, I have to make decisions so that it is really almost a new edition

That's interesting  - what sort of decisions do you make? Personally, I always try and retain exactly what is there in the original (even typos), which is Logos' normal practice, too.

I am a rather conservative editor for what I have created.  Yet I do not worry about fonts matching.  I have replaced 19th century greek which has a dipthong of upsilon above an omicron with having the upsilon afterwards since it cannot be put into unicode.  So far I have retained the greek letter "stigma" in a few texts and also some long s's...  But line breaks change, which means that some old notes on "line # of page #" no longer are helpful.  Sometimes the footnotes in the documents I create are renumbered.  Sometimes I have taken marginal headings and put them as "normal" headings.  A few times I have taken scripture references from the footnotes and put them as parenthetical notes...

And yes, I retain misspellings.  And duplicated words too.  But sometimes the

the word is duplicated at a line break and so it is MUCH more obvious in my ebook than the original, where we often will not even notice it.  I have not always been consistent with maintaining english diaeresis's.  Every time I run into a word that is hyphenated at a line break, I have to figure out if I should retain or eliminate the hyphen.  Usually I look to see how the word is otherwise used (is it cooperate or co-operate?  preeminent or pre-eminent?  post-man or postman?)

And so while I try to maintain as much as possible - even duplicate pages in one case - I have been forced to admit that I have created a new edition - however minimally "new".

SDG

Ken McGuire

The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann

L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials

L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze

Posts 13417
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 6:24 AM

Alan Macgregor:
The whole point of citation in academic papers is that one's academic peers can refer to the original text for themselves and see how one has arrived at one's use of the citation and evaluate it properly. If that citation refers by default to the electronic version of the text, then it may be difficult for non-Logos-using academics to evaluate the citation.

I agree 100%.

Posts 611
Graham Owen | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 6:29 AM

I agree that we need the original date of the text preserved even if means another meta data option. I have a set of collections that divide my library by date that I use with the citation tool so that I can see how peoples thinking on some texts has changed (or not) over time. Being able to do things like this is the power of the digital library but having a 2013 date on some 1813 thinking diminishes that power.

God Bless

Graham

Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke

Posts 13417
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 6:37 AM

Ken McGuire:

But sometimes the

the word is duplicated at a line break and so it is MUCH more obvious in my ebook than the original, where we often will not even notice it.

Big Smile

Ken McGuire:
I have replaced 19th century greek which has a dipthong of upsilon above an omicron with having the upsilon afterwards since it cannot be put into unicode

It's off-topic, but you probably know that the reason it can't be put into unicode is because it's a ligature rather than a separate grapheme. It's up to the rendering engine to handle ligatures (although you could use U+0222 Ȣ, or U+0223 ȣ, if you really wanted to reatain the 'look'), and of course we don't have that control in Personal Books.

Ken McGuire:
And so while I try to maintain as much as possible - even duplicate pages in one case - I have been forced to admit that I am created a new edition - however minimally "new".

Fair enough.

Posts 654
David Bailey | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 6:42 AM

Mark Barnes:

Alan Macgregor:
The whole point of citation in academic papers is that one's academic peers can refer to the original text for themselves and see how one has arrived at one's use of the citation and evaluate it properly. If that citation refers by default to the electronic version of the text, then it may be difficult for non-Logos-using academics to evaluate the citation.

I agree 100%.

Yes

and having the citation engine follow exactly the published standards.

Posts 466
Butters | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 6:55 AM

It seems to me reasonable that Logos puts itself as publisher.  They have put the work in like any other publisher.  It's akin to the various reprint publishers scattered all over Amazon - actually, come to think of it though, Logos probably puts in much more work than they do.    

However, I do understand about academic citation issue as well. 

Why not have two levels?

  1. In terms of marketing and whatnot, Logos continues to stamp these books with Logos as publisher and current year and all.
  2. HOWEVER, when you cite it, the citation automatically reflects the original rather than the Logos branded book?  Obviously, Logos would have to make some changes to make this happen though.    

This seems to satisfy both concerns? 

~Butters Smile

“To love means loving the unlovable.  To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable.  Faith means believing the unbelievable.  Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton

Posts 2589
Lee | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 7:09 AM

Note the MLA style, which provides for (1) material gleaned from an electronic collection, as well as (2) "republished" books which are essentially facsimiles.

Me, I'm just confused by the MLA format. Indifferent

Page 1 of 3 (43 items) 1 2 3 Next > | RSS