Isn't a dissertation with an ISBN just a book? Can you give an example where the ISBN would be relevant? (and ISSN - certainly not - why would a dissertation have a series number?)
Here is an example of a dissertation at our university: http://diss-epsilon.slu.se:8080/archive/00002220/
All disserstation are part of a publication series (in our case Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae).
Different fields do thesis / dissertations as either monograhps (more book like) or as a number of articles, with an introdcuction, i.e. thesis. This might vary slightly with academic tradition. At any rate, I do not think considering a book and a thesis the same kind of item would be a good idea.
Do you need more proof? My guess is that all Swedish universities does the same, and possibly also other Nordic countries since we have similar University systems. Either way, I think that should be enough to motivate adding those fields. I'd be happy to provide more info to developers if that is needed.
Martin: Would one of these dissertations be cited differently from a book? The Swedish catalog shows those theses as having all of the normal publication data that we'd expect from a book (and more than we find for many books!). Can you provide an example of how you'd cite a book in a common Swedish style and how you'd cite one of these dissertations?
For me, coming from the American tradition, I feel as if the thesis type is motivated precisely by theses being unpublished; a published thesis is a book or an article of some sort. But if that assumption will make it hard to properly cite Swedish theses, then I need to be more flexible in my thinking.
(edit: I keep thinking that Uppsala is in Finland. Sorry about that.)
Sorry for my delayed answer. We've had holidays...
At our university (SLU) references to theses have contained the word "Diss.", otherwise mostly similar to the book reference type, an example:
Bergquist, S. (2006). Bioactive Compounds in Baby Spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.). Diss. Alnarp:Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. ISBN 91-345-678-1.
I am not the one to judge how important this is, and the librarian I have talked to does not think it is of utmost importance, but she considers herself pragmatic in this case. I will try to get someone from another university here give their opinion.
sounds to me like Diss. can just be treated as part of the title.
Or, if you want to be more thorough, a series (collection-title in the csl) - series also makes sense - it's published by the University (i.e. the publisher) as part of it's dissertation publishing series.
And I do think it makes sense to treat this as a series when published as books.
This would seem to agree with the university's practice:
All dissertations are part of a publication series (in our case Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae).
Such data would cause some styles to include the full "Acta ..." name in a reference if the thesis is entered as a Book, so we do have fairly minimal data loss by replacing that "Acta..." with "Diss.".
Are we sure that the "Acta Universitatis ...." series title would never need to be shown in bibliographic entries?
Trautner, Andreas (2003) On soil behaviour during field traffic. Doctoral diss. Dept. of Soil Sciences, SLU. Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae. Agraria vol. 372.
may I ask why?
I don't think dissertations should be "reports" - that seems completely ad-hoc - an immediate disadvantage would be data transfer from other bibliographic software - they should be either theses or books.
So if adding type/genre to books creates too many problems in citation styles, I don't see a compelling reason why theses shouldn't have series and ISBN (they already have type and ISSN seems unnecessary).
Book is an often used item type, and normally doesn't include type in citations, so i think adding type would be confusing. But I don't feel strongly about this.
So if adding type/genre to books creates too many problems in citation styles, I don't see a compelling reason why theses shouldn't have series and ISBN (they already have type and ISSN seems unnecessary).
I see no problem either. The only issue is that most styles format thesis without regard for these fields. If a thesis is cited as a book and the user needs to use, say, a Chicago style, this user would still need to use the book item type to enter the reference. Maybe adding type to book is the best solution after all...
If a thesis is cited as a book and the user needs to use, say, a Chicago style, this user would still need to use the book item type to enter the reference.
I don't follow. If it's a thesis, and a style has a thesis style rule, why would the fact that the thesis happens to have an ISBN and series cause the user to need to cite it using a book style rule? A user citing these theses as books is in fact making a mistake, unless I'm missing something here.
it's complicated and I don't think there's a great solution:
Should a complete citation of a Swedish dissertation include a publisher? A series?
Dissertations in Chicago style don't - but wouldn't CMS want that type of information included if it's actually available? This is a bit tricky - I would tend to say if something is published as a book it should be treated as such and any additional information should be added using additional fields - i.e. type and series.
But I do see the problem that Elena points to and I'm not super wedded to this, either.
I don't follow. If it's a thesis, and a style has a thesis style rule, why would the fact that the thesis happens to have an ISBN and series cause the user to need to cite it using a book style rule? A user citing these theses as books is in fact making a mistake, unless I'm missing something here.
If a work has an ISBN and a publisher, it's a published work, even if it's a dissertation. In that case it would be cited as a published work in Chicago (I still think it's an institutional publication and thus closer to reports than books).
If a work has an ISBN and a publisher, it's a published work, even if it's a dissertation.
But here I'm not sure that these are published-- they just have been assigned an ISBN, which doesn't necessarily mean that a print run was done and the theses have been distributed as the latest volume in the ongoing Acta series. The fact that these are simply defended theses and not theses that have been edited and turned into published books is what ought to be reflected in the style choice, unless Chicago specifically draws the line between Book and Thesis at the existence of ISBN.
I also don't want to turn this molehill into a mountain. Are there other benefits to be had from adding Type to the Book item type? Perhaps other genres that would benefit from it, like edited collection, or something of that sort?
But here I'm not sure that these are published-- they just have been assigned an ISBN, which doesn't necessarily mean that a print run was done and the theses have been distributed as the latest volume in the ongoing Acta series.
Yes, this is a key question and I'm still not sure if that is the case from the discussion above.
The fact that these are simply defended theses and not theses that have been edited and turned into published books is what ought to be reflected in the style choice, unless Chicago specifically draws the line between Book and Thesis at the existence of ISBN.
CMS 15 treats microform editions of unedited dissertations as books--the same may apply to the Swedish case IF these theses are actually issued as publications by the university.
17.242 Microform editions
Works issued commercially in microform editions, including dissertations, are treated much like books. The form of publication, where needed, is given after the facts of publication. (In the first example below, the page number is to the printed text; the other numbers indicate the fiche and frame, and the letter indicates the row.)
N: 5. Beatrice Farwell, French Popular Lithographic Imagery, vol. 12, Lithography in Art and Commerce (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), text-fiche, p. 67, 3C12.
B: Tauber, Abraham. Spelling Reform in the United States. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1958.
Microform or other photographic processes used only to preserve printed material need not be mentioned in a citation. The source is treated as it would be in its published version.
I'm encountering the same difficulties than the one listed above but for french thesis in law. In deed most of the good thesis or published and it's absolutely necessary to cite the published edition because that's the one every library have, whereas the others can only be found in one or two places in France since the number of copies is very limited (less than ten generaly). The other important thing to know is that if I use the type "book" instead of "thesis" than in my final bibliography the published thesis and the unpublished one will be in different fields. In deed the bibliography of a thesis is organised in different items : thesis, monograph (which means all the books except thesis and treaties of law). So what we need here is to import in the styl "thesis" all the fields we have for "book" : serie, volume (some thesis has more than one volumes), number of the series (because most of the thesis's publisher give a number to the thesis published in that series, number ISBN. See for an example http://www.sudoc.abes.fr/DB=2.1/SET=5/TTL=2/SHW?FRST=1 Moreover it would be great, in the field author, to add a sub-field for the director of the thesis which, in France, is marked differently if the thesis has been published or not : - for a published thesis, the director thesis would generaly wright a preface to the thesis of his student. In this case we don't precise the name of the director because it's always the same. In the example given previously we would wright G. Wicker, "Les fictions juridiques", préf. J. Amiel-Donat, etc - for an unpublished thesis, the director's name we will have "G. Wicker, "Les fictions juridiques, dir. J. Amiel-Donat, etc.
(answering in french to this french question, sorry)
Bonjour Benji,
en fait il se trouve que dans le sudoc comme dans les autres catalogues de bibliothèque, une thèse publiée est considérée comme un livre, et zotero n'a pas la possibilité de savoir que c'est une thèse. Si je prends l'exemple de cette thèse : http://www.sudoc.abes.fr/DB=2.1/SRCH?IKT=12&TRM=074484621 qui a été publiée, elle a l'icône verte indiquant que c'est un livre. Il y a une zone thèse qui indique que c'est un ouvrage issu d'une thèse mais je ne suis pas sûr que cette zone soit présente sur toutes les thèses éditées.
Pouvez-vous donner la référence de la notice que vous signaliez en exemple (le champ numéro de notice) ? Le lien que vous avez donné était lié à votre session et ne me permet pas d'accéder à la notice.
@symac: there is a misunderstanding. I don't think that benji1988 has a problem with the translator. See this topic. Anyway, I think that a published thesis should be considered as a book in zotero.
Il y a une zone thèse qui indique que c'est un ouvrage issu d'une thèse mais je ne suis pas sûr que cette zone soit présente sur toutes les thèses éditées.
Je suis presque sûr que c'est toujours le cas (pas de vérification mais expérience personnelle: d'ailleurs je le copie/colle toujours dans ma notice zotero).
@symac : voilà le numéro de la notice 004044754. @Gracile & symac : In deed, I could use the style "book" but than i need extra fields in order to specify - the types of books (thesis, law treaties, etc) - the university where the thesis was written - the town - the director of the thesis.
Between the two possible qualification of a published thesis ("thesis" / "book") it seems to me more logical to use thesis. But I won't complain if "book" is chosen, but only if it allow me to add the same informations that I have in a thesis.
Why would you need the type of book? Does the university differ from the publisher? How does it show up in the citation? How does the thesis directory show up in citations? We'll need some sample citations and references to relevant style guides here.
@benji1988: The reason you want to treat published thesis as "thesis" in zotero is that you want to generate a bibliography sorted by types (Books, then Thesis, then Articles, etc.). I understand your need but I think that you should rather use tags and saved searches as erazlogo explained it here.
About the supervisor ("directof of thesis") role, can you provide examples of citations using it?
@ ajylon 1° I need the type of book in order to organize my bibliography. I could do it manually by following the method indicated by Gracile, but I rather do it automatically. 2° The university differs from the publisher. However, all things considered, it's not necessary to indicate the name of the university when the thesis is published. 3° The directory of the thesis show up this way for published thesis : - P. Morvan, Le principe de droit privé, éd. Panthéon-Assas, 1999, préf . J.-L. Sourioux or I. Coriatt-Attia, Le statut de la pluriactivité en droit social, PUAM, 1999, préf . D. Berra ; both or cited in www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-de-droit-constitutionnel-2001-4-page-779.htm. - MAITRE Grégory, préf . MUIR WATT Horatia, La Responsabilité civile à l’épreuve de l’analyse économique du droit, Paris, L.G.D.J., coll. Droit & Économie, 2005, 315 p. ; cited in http://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-droit-economique-2005-4-page-431.htm - J. Gatsi, Le contrat-cadre, thèse avec préf . de M. Béhar-Touchais, L.G.D.J., 1996 et L. Aynès, op. cit., p. 12 ; cited in www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-droit-economique-2001-3-page-339.htm.
For the unpublished thesis the name of the director is followed by the symbols "(dir.)" instead of "(préf.).
If this development was maid, it would be great to add the possibilty to specify that, in collective books, the author cited has not write all the chapter but has only coordonate the work. In this example, found on http://www.facdroit-sciencepo.uvsq.fr/m-neyret-laurent-23132.kjsp, L. Neyret « La force normative des principes de droit européen de la responsabilité civile », La force normative, C. Thibierge (dir.), LGDJ, septembre 2009, p. 529, L. Neyret is an author of chapter in a collective book (la force normative) coordinated by C. Thibierge. When the collective book is directly cited (and not a chapter into it), we would also use "(dir.)" : La force normatif, C. Thibierge (dir.), LGDJ, septembre 2009
Upgrade Storage
All disserstation are part of a publication series (in our case Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae).
Different fields do thesis / dissertations as either monograhps (more book like) or as a number of articles, with an introdcuction, i.e. thesis. This might vary slightly with academic tradition. At any rate, I do not think considering a book and a thesis the same kind of item would be a good idea.
And a monograph: http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?searchId=1&pid=diva2:165360
Both with ISBN and ISSN.
Best,
Martin
Would one of these dissertations be cited differently from a book? The Swedish catalog shows those theses as having all of the normal publication data that we'd expect from a book (and more than we find for many books!). Can you provide an example of how you'd cite a book in a common Swedish style and how you'd cite one of these dissertations?
For me, coming from the American tradition, I feel as if the thesis type is motivated precisely by theses being unpublished; a published thesis is a book or an article of some sort. But if that assumption will make it hard to properly cite Swedish theses, then I need to be more flexible in my thinking.
(edit: I keep thinking that Uppsala is in Finland. Sorry about that.)
At our university (SLU) references to theses have contained the word "Diss.", otherwise mostly similar to the book reference type, an example:
Bergquist, S. (2006). Bioactive Compounds in Baby Spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.). Diss. Alnarp:Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. ISBN 91-345-678-1.
I am not the one to judge how important this is, and the librarian I have talked to does not think it is of utmost importance, but she considers herself pragmatic in this case. I will try to get someone from another university here give their opinion.
Or, if you want to be more thorough, a series (collection-title in the csl) - series also makes sense - it's published by the University (i.e. the publisher) as part of it's dissertation publishing series.
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/10593/adding-new-item-type-dissertation/?Focus=50677#Comment_50677
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/339/additional-fields/?Focus=18612#Comment_18612
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/3873/still-more-bugs-with-harvard-and-multiple-authors/?Focus=24316#Comment_24316
[edit] Ah, right. I already had the feeling I was missing the point.
And I do think it makes sense to treat this as a series when published as books.
Are we sure that the "Acta Universitatis ...." series title would never need to be shown in bibliographic entries?
An example from the first page of results (http://diss-epsilon.slu.se:8080/archive/00000219/):
Trautner, Andreas (2003) On soil behaviour during field traffic. Doctoral diss. Dept. of Soil Sciences, SLU. Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae. Agraria vol. 372.
[edit] I just realized report doesn't have ISBN field. But I'd rather add ISBN to report than add type to book.
I don't think dissertations should be "reports" - that seems completely ad-hoc - an immediate disadvantage would be data transfer from other bibliographic software - they should be either theses or books.
So if adding type/genre to books creates too many problems in citation styles, I don't see a compelling reason why theses shouldn't have series and ISBN (they already have type and ISSN seems unnecessary).
Should a complete citation of a Swedish dissertation include a publisher? A series?
Dissertations in Chicago style don't - but wouldn't CMS want that type of information included if it's actually available? This is a bit tricky - I would tend to say if something is published as a book it should be treated as such and any additional information should be added using additional fields - i.e. type and series.
But I do see the problem that Elena points to and I'm not super wedded to this, either.
I also don't want to turn this molehill into a mountain. Are there other benefits to be had from adding Type to the Book item type? Perhaps other genres that would benefit from it, like edited collection, or something of that sort?
I'm encountering the same difficulties than the one listed above but for french thesis in law.
In deed most of the good thesis or published and it's absolutely necessary to cite the published edition because that's the one every library have, whereas the others can only be found in one or two places in France since the number of copies is very limited (less than ten generaly).
The other important thing to know is that if I use the type "book" instead of "thesis" than in my final bibliography the published thesis and the unpublished one will be in different fields. In deed the bibliography of a thesis is organised in different items : thesis, monograph (which means all the books except thesis and treaties of law).
So what we need here is to import in the styl "thesis" all the fields we have for "book" : serie, volume (some thesis has more than one volumes), number of the series (because most of the thesis's publisher give a number to the thesis published in that series, number ISBN.
See for an example http://www.sudoc.abes.fr/DB=2.1/SET=5/TTL=2/SHW?FRST=1
Moreover it would be great, in the field author, to add a sub-field for the director of the thesis which, in France, is marked differently if the thesis has been published or not :
- for a published thesis, the director thesis would generaly wright a preface to the thesis of his student. In this case we don't precise the name of the director because it's always the same. In the example given previously we would wright G. Wicker, "Les fictions juridiques", préf. J. Amiel-Donat, etc
- for an unpublished thesis, the director's name we will have "G. Wicker, "Les fictions juridiques, dir. J. Amiel-Donat, etc.
Thanks for your help.
Bonjour Benji,
en fait il se trouve que dans le sudoc comme dans les autres catalogues de bibliothèque, une thèse publiée est considérée comme un livre, et zotero n'a pas la possibilité de savoir que c'est une thèse. Si je prends l'exemple de cette thèse : http://www.sudoc.abes.fr/DB=2.1/SRCH?IKT=12&TRM=074484621 qui a été publiée, elle a l'icône verte indiquant que c'est un livre. Il y a une zone thèse qui indique que c'est un ouvrage issu d'une thèse mais je ne suis pas sûr que cette zone soit présente sur toutes les thèses éditées.
Pouvez-vous donner la référence de la notice que vous signaliez en exemple (le champ numéro de notice) ? Le lien que vous avez donné était lié à votre session et ne me permet pas d'accéder à la notice.
@Gracile & symac : In deed, I could use the style "book" but than i need extra fields in order to specify
- the types of books (thesis, law treaties, etc)
- the university where the thesis was written
- the town
- the director of the thesis.
Between the two possible qualification of a published thesis ("thesis" / "book") it seems to me more logical to use thesis. But I won't complain if "book" is chosen, but only if it allow me to add the same informations that I have in a thesis.
The reason you want to treat published thesis as "thesis" in zotero is that you want to generate a bibliography sorted by types (Books, then Thesis, then Articles, etc.).
I understand your need but I think that you should rather use tags and saved searches as erazlogo explained it here.
About the supervisor ("directof of thesis") role, can you provide examples of citations using it?
1° I need the type of book in order to organize my bibliography. I could do it manually by following the method indicated by Gracile, but I rather do it automatically.
2° The university differs from the publisher. However, all things considered, it's not necessary to indicate the name of the university when the thesis is published.
3° The directory of the thesis show up this way for published thesis :
- P. Morvan, Le principe de droit privé, éd. Panthéon-Assas, 1999, préf . J.-L. Sourioux or I. Coriatt-Attia, Le statut de la pluriactivité en droit social, PUAM, 1999, préf . D. Berra ; both or cited in www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-de-droit-constitutionnel-2001-4-page-779.htm.
- MAITRE Grégory, préf . MUIR WATT Horatia, La Responsabilité civile à l’épreuve de l’analyse économique du droit, Paris, L.G.D.J., coll. Droit & Économie, 2005, 315 p. ; cited in http://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-droit-economique-2005-4-page-431.htm
- J. Gatsi, Le contrat-cadre, thèse avec préf . de M. Béhar-Touchais, L.G.D.J., 1996 et L. Aynès, op. cit., p. 12 ; cited in www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-droit-economique-2001-3-page-339.htm.
For the unpublished thesis the name of the director is followed by the symbols "(dir.)" instead of "(préf.).
If this development was maid, it would be great to add the possibilty to specify that, in collective books, the author cited has not write all the chapter but has only coordonate the work.
In this example, found on http://www.facdroit-sciencepo.uvsq.fr/m-neyret-laurent-23132.kjsp, L. Neyret « La force normative des principes de droit européen de la responsabilité civile », La force normative, C. Thibierge (dir.), LGDJ, septembre 2009, p. 529, L. Neyret is an author of chapter in a collective book (la force normative) coordinated by C. Thibierge.
When the collective book is directly cited (and not a chapter into it), we would also use "(dir.)" : La force normatif, C. Thibierge (dir.), LGDJ, septembre 2009
I can provide more and more example if you want.
Thanks for your help.