4chan hacks christian dating site Nude webcam chat free
Obviously unpublished sources can't easily be counted into automated citation tracking systems for technical reasons, but if the author wanted that they could publish something (or, e.g., put it in a free repository like the ar Xiv). Sometimes the person is inconveniently pseudonymous, but other times they should be credited by name. EDIT: People _do_ publish papers about their data, and their citation counts are often extremely low, because research users continue to use footnotes instead. Let's continue with the Google Ngrams example.
Crediting a web page in a footnote is almost no credit at all. I added the Google Books Ngrams example slightly later, but: People _do_ publish papers about their data, and their citation counts are often extremely low, because research users continue to use footnotes instead. Are you talking about researchers not giving credit for pure data sets? Are you talking about someone crediting a webpage without attempting to attach the name of the author? All I had to do was search Google Scholar for "Google Ngrams" to find easy examples on the first page of results, like this one: paper is written by famous Stanford researchers, and they do not cite a single author of their data. This also happens to my research (Concept Net) all the time.
No, I wasn't working for a prof - but note that you yourself just accept that work including ideas can be published by a prof without attribution to the discoverer! Why would a footnote be considered less credit than something in the list of references?
It's pretty common in my field to use footnotes to give credit to other researchers for ideas that arose in an informal context, e.g., "I thank A. Indeed, the question of whether prose footnotes are at the bottom of the page rather than displayed intermixed with citations to published sources (as in Physical Review Letters) is just a stylistic choices that varies by journal.
I've even seen blog posts and email correspondence cited.
Arxiv is used by fellow pirates, so it's off limits, on this view.
What I said was, researchers in my field are in the habit of not giving credit for data, and instead they have adopted the convention of using half-assed footnotes with URLs in them, which is not appropriate credit.
I speculate that one reason for this habit is that data often comes from inconveniently non-academic sources and would look bad in the bibliography.
Else it could be cited as personal communication, which usually covers direct communication, but can also be used for nonarchived discussion groups.
The reluctance to cite a source because it's not a peer reviewed research paper, is bordering on cargo cult science.