Resource publication date accuracy

Page 1 of 1 (2 items)
This post has 1 Reply | 1 Follower

Posts 1343
Harry Hahne | Forum Activity | Posted: Fri, Mar 1 2019 12:10 PM

In the past the publication date listed for Logos resources has varied as to whether it refers to the publication date of the print edition or the date that the digital edition was created. So sometimes a Logos book would list a publication date of 2010, even though the book is public domain and the author had died in the 19th century.

For example, on Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments, the publication date is listed as 1997, even though the title page of the book says 1871. This screws up the formatting of bibliographies and footnotes, since the publication date is really the date of the first Logos digital edition, not the date of the printed book.

The fact that the Library tool has the option to display both Publication Date and Electronic Publication Date is a wonderful improvement. Thank you to Faithlife for this!

My question is, has Faithlife has worked through their entire catalog to correct the publication date so it accurately represents the publication date of the print edition that Logos converted to digital format? If not, do they intend to do this?

As I have browsed through my Library, I have noticed that things have been improving. For example, the 6 volume version of the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentary (A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments) now shows a publication date of n.d. Presumably this is because the print edition that was used to create this digital edition did not have a publication date on the title page. This is certainly an improvement over an erroneous date, although I believe an original copyright date could be obtained for this book.

But unfortunately, the abridged edition of this commentary still shows a 1997 publication date.

An accurate publication date of the print edition is when both students and scholars and cite sources. It is also important for assessing how up-to-date a resource is. Many students have mistakenly used 18th and 19th century sources in research papers because the Logos Publication Date field specified a date in the 2000s.

I still have to tell students to verify the publication date of any resource they use by checking the name of the author on Wikipedia. If an author died in the 19th century, he is not likely to have written a book in 2010, unless someone was using necromancy to write down what a dead person was saying.

Posts 6136
SineNomine | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 1 2019 5:50 PM

Harry Hahne:
My question is, has Faithlife has worked through their entire catalog to correct the publication date so it accurately represents the publication date of the print edition that Logos converted to digital format? If not, do they intend to do this?

No. And, realistically, probably not.

Harry Hahne:
I still have to tell students to verify the publication date of any resource they use by checking the name of the author on Wikipedia. If an author died in the 19th century, he is not likely to have written a book in 2010, unless someone was using necromancy to write down what a dead person was saying.

But new editions and translations can have print publication dates in the 21st century. This is part of why I loathe author-date citation schemes in the Humanities.

“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara

Page 1 of 1 (2 items) | RSS