Forums
Dear editor and others,
I am writing an article for which I am using several manuscript collections that I consulted years ago. Since then, the manuscript collections have been transferred to another repository. I am not quite sure which repository to mention in my citation:
- If I cite the repository where I consulted the manuscripts, I am citing what I used, but that will not help people who read the article and want to follow up to locate the source.
- If I cite the repository where the manuscripts are currently located, I suggest that I have been there when I have not.
Is there a standard way to handle these situations?
Regardless of which repository I choose to use in my citation, I think it would be helpful to add an explanatory note to the first footnote where this situation occurs. Or am I overthinking this?
yhoitink,
yhoitink,
Your instincts are good. EE would cite the record according to where EE used it, then add a comment stating our understanding that the collection has been removed to a different repository—with any relevant details.
As you point out, if you simply cite the manuscript to the current repository, you imply that you have been to the new facility and have used it there, or that someone at the new facility has provided the document to you. That implication could come back to bite you. Sometimes, amid those transfers, a specific record book or file or document is "lost." If we then cite to the new repository, our citation becomes an assertion that the record was indeed accessioned into the new facility.
Thank you for the clear
Thank you for the clear answer and confirmation that I'm on the right track!