Searching High and Low

Wired.com has a story telling how self published authors now have the ability to sell their works on Sony’s eBook store.  The article also points out that authors can also sell works on Amazon’s Kindle.  According to Sony’s partner, Smashwords, authors using the Sony store can expect “much higher royalties” with no charges for creating and uploading content.   In addition, in Sony’s world, there is no DRM.

Slashdot points to an article in The New York Times describing a disturbing practice of one pharmaceutical company hiring a ghostwriting firm to pen articles for publication in academic journals.  Of course it would look mighty suspicious to journal editors seeing a manuscript authored by a writing firm so the writing firm rounded up some “top physicians” who allowed their names to be cited as the authors.

Here is one of the articles included in the discussion:

Bachmann GA. (2005). Menopausal vasomotor symptoms: a review of causes, effects and evidence-based treatment options. The Journal Of Reproductive Medicine, 50(3), 155-165.

The released court documents include an email exchange between the ghostwriter and Bachmann where  Bachmann indicates that “It is the best article that I have come across on this topic.” Funny words for someone who is supposedly the author.

I wonder how long this kind of publishing has been going on and what kind of long term impact is has on other research.  Google Scholar currently shows that Bachmann’s article has been referenced 32 times. How many others are out there?

Source:

Like adam over on theshiftingstacks, I began wondering about how to apply the seventh edition of the MLA Handbook to sites like YouTube and Flickr that host user-generated resources.

While the seventh edition of the “MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers” does a good job of providing examples for information found on sites that publish their own content like Newsweek, CNN, and National Public Radio it does not provide any examples for sites like YouTube that host user-generated content.

I’ll give you that the number of educationally-relevant videos on sites like these is likely dwarfed by videos of cute kittens, but plenty of cite-worthy materials do exist.  And with a recent report indicating that Americans viewed over 16 billion online videos IN ONE MONTH, educators and librarians will likely see more and more of these showing up in works cited pages.

Example MLA Citations for Videos on YouTube

Here are a couple of example citations for YouTube videos based on my understanding of MLA’s guidelines found in section 5.6.2b.

Carnegie Mellon Univ. “Randy Pausch Last Lecture: Achieving Your Childhood Dreams.” YouTube. N.p., 20 Dec. 2007. Web. 15 July 2009.

CCAC Library. “Ebscohost: An Overview.” YouTube. N.p., 29 Jan. 2009. Web. 15 July 2009.

In these examples, I chose to include the “N.p.” for “no publisher” based on this Lawrence Lessig citation example on page 186 of the manual:

The above refers to a post on Lessig’s blog. Even though he owns the site and publishes/posts blog articles, MLA does not consider the author and owner/operator as a “publisher” in this situation. Is that because the site is operated by an individual and not a corporate entity?

In applying this to the YouTube examples it seems inaccurate to cite YouTube as the “publisher or sponsor of the site” since YouTube has zero responsibility for the content of either video, hence the “N.p.” for no publisher.

Not listing a publisher in these citations will likely apply to most videos on user-generated sites like YouTube. One instance where this may not apply is for videos on user-generated sites that are posted by the site owner.  For example:

“YouTube Help Center Welcome Video.” YouTube. YouTube, 04 May 2007. Web. 15 July 2009.

I come to this conclusion based on this citation (page 186) for a recorded streaming news segment:

“Hourly News Summary.” National Public Radio. Natl. Public Radio, 20 July 2007. Web. 20 July 2007.

In this instance, NPR published an audio file on the its own site and was recognized by MLA as the publisher or sponsor of the site.

So it seems that:

1. MLA does NOT recognize as a “publisher or sponsor” an individual that owns a website and posts/publishes content (Lessig)
2. MLA DOES recognize as a “publisher or sponsor” an organization or corporate entity that owns a website and posts/publishes content (NPR)

How would you cite them?

---

One of the changes in the seventh edition of the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers is that the “medium of publication” must be included for each item that appears in a works cited page.

I was curious to see a list of the authorized terms MLA wants us to use in describing the “medium of publication” but did not see one in the book.  So, I made my own.

Here’s a list of the MLA “medium of publication” types that I compiled from the seventh edition handbook along with the rule numbers in the manual. The format looks like this:

Broad category

MLA terms appear in bold text – additional description if needed.

---

Print publications – 5.4 through 5.5

Print – books, periodical articles,

Web publications - 5.6

Web – websites, articles from research databases such as LexisNexis and Academic Search Premier.

Television or radio broadcast - 5.7.1

Radio – (medium of reception) radio broadcasts
Television – (medium of reception)

Sound recording - 5.7.2

Audiocassette
Audiotape – reel to reel
CD
LP

Film or video recording - 5.7.3

Film
DVD
Videocassette
Laser disc
Sound filmstrip
Slide program

Live performances - 5.7.4

Performance

Visual art (indicate the medium of composition) - 5.7.6

Photograph
Graphite on paper
Bronze
Oil on canvas

Interviews – 5.7.7

Personal interview
Telephone interview

Miscellaneous

E-mail - 5.7.13
Microform - 5.7.15 (microfilm, microfiche, microcard)

CD-ROM – 5.7.17
DVD-ROM - 5.7.17

Scores – musical score or libretto - 5.7.5

Digital Files (specify the type of file and follow with “file” ) - 5.7.18

Digital file – Use if you cannot identify type of file
PDF file
Microsoft Word file (italicize titles of software programs)
MP3 file
JPEG file

The Scientist is reporting that pharmaceutical giant Merck created a professional-sounding journal in which to plant “research” articles supportive of the company’s products.  The revelation came in the form of court testimony during a class action lawsuit against the company by former patients who claimed that “Vioxx caused their heart attack or stroke.” (See this BNET Pharma post for even more of what was going on behind-the-scenes at Merck.)

The publishing partner for this marketing scheme was an Elsevier company, Excerpta Medica Communications.  The Scientist article includes links to the first two issues of the the faux journal, The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine (ISSN 1447-5529).

Chemistry Blog has done a content analysis of the two issues and has tabulated the number of times Merck products are mentioned and whether the products are given a positive or neutral light. No surprise, ChemistryBlog’s results show that Merck products did not receive any negative coverage in these fake journal articles.

Based on the following statement that appeared on publisher’s Excerpta Medica site, I would say the company is living up to expectations:

Goal 1: Create new ways to think – accomplished

Goal 2: Create customized programs – accomplished

Goal 3: Surprise and amaze us with your ability to transform ideas into effective programs – accomplished