There was a time when a person who needed to determine if there was any significant previous research relating to a current project in existence would get out of the office and go to either a departmental, or institution, library and bury themselves in a stack of journals. They would actually pull a hard covered, bound, volume from the shelf and open it to the index, be assailed by that particular odor of old paper and printers ink, search for a related article and actually read the article by turning the pages. In a digression, a benefit to having the entire issue available allows the possibility of coming across an unrelated article that might spark interest and lead down a different avenue of future research. Electronic searches for a specific topic generally restricts the return to a narrow information base. Back to the library, if the article was important a trip to the copy machine on the floor, with the requisite amount of change, was required so that the person could actually refer back to the article later when the manuscript was being written. During this process the copied article was removed from a manila file folder, consulted, and the correct authors, title, journal, volume and pages were there available. It was necessary to work for the knowledge within the pages.
Today it is more common that to find relevant reference material the scientist will sit at a computer, after acquiring the requisite cup of coffee or soft drink and snack, and start searching in the web. Alright, I got one! The article is perused and perhaps notes taken on a piece of paper with the relevant information – on to the next one. The process is repeated, and it is off to the next thing on the to do list. Time to write the manuscript: darn, what happened to that piece of paper with the information? Okay, the paper was found, and the citation added to the text and listed in the references. But, what of the information? It is common in this age of electronic communication that the need for a volume and page designation is lessened. Most journals still provide a volume designation, but the use of pages is fading away. Instead there is an article number and a doi: reference, or perhaps a web-site. Actually, more numbers are being used instead of with the volume and pages format. And, you better get those numbers correct or the road traveled might lead to a dead end. This comes from experience. A doi: number was wrong, and apparently there was no hardcopy available anywhere for a journal that no longer was published. I used to think it would be impossible to lose anything once consigned to the web but apparently there are exceptions.
Assuming all is reported accurately, what type of reference material is to be used. The preferred information should come from a journal where the work had been vetted. Also, preferred is if the information came from a book or monograph. There is a consideration involved with those. It sometimes occurs that the article or chapter does not receive the same degree of scrutiny in the publishing process that a reviewed article does in a journal. Often an annual meeting is cited. What shows up in print is normally the distillation of a person standing behind a podium and discoursing on their work to an audience for 15 minutes while the slides pass by, appropriate clapping and the next speaker is. The point is that what shows up in the published form is an abstract that just provides the bare bones of the content of the slide presentation. Is this actually something that should be listed in the references of your work? If there is no follow up full article published do you really have a feeling for what was presented at the meeting that you did not attend? When I was an active research scientist, and writing manuscripts, I avoided stand-alone abstracts if at all possible. I am not doubting the content of the abstract, but I never considered the content to be sufficiently informative. In some instances, a proceedings of the meeting is published that contains a fully described report on what was presented at the meeting. These have more credence and just below that of a peer reviewed manuscript. Other types of citations that I will advise the author to not use are a URL site without any other information supplied. I know that is what was on the web-site where it was discovered, but without any supporting information it is useless. Frequently there are citations attributed to easily recognized organizations including AVRDC, FAO, USDA, WHO and a universe of acronyms that may be recognized locally, but in other parts of the world are just letters. Two things happen when these show up. The author is instructed to change the listing in the text and references to anonymous and to spell out the acronym in the citation in the reference list. I have yet to find a brick and mortar building, or the organization housed in it, to write one word in any language. Someone put pen to paper to describe what happened even if they did not get credit on the title page. Another type of citation that occasionally is provided is that from an industry magazine, or newspaper, industry or otherwise. That the information may be interesting it is not the result of the scientific process. It is the repeating of something that was produced by someone else, and likely that person was never contacted for input, and is published for general information. The article, like this editorial, is opinion, not researched science. Read it for interest, do not use it to bolster, or refute, another article that is the product of the outcome of an experiment.
Finding information in this electronic world is easier, almost too easy, and in volumes that can lend confusion to the goal. As a result, those who use the internet to gather information have to so with care so that the product of the search is used to continue the accurate distribution of knowledge.
Reviewers of Submitted Manuscripts
In addition to the Editorial Consulting Board, I extend my gratitude to the voluntary reviewers who provide their time and efforts to assure that the quality of the manuscripts meet the standards expected by the journal and its readers. They are: A, Abdul-Rafin, E.S. Dessoky, S. Erdal, S. Marlwah, H. Restrepo-Diaz, P. Schreinemachers, and D. Unal.