Citing DNA Evidence

Great questions, Erick!  You've also given me an idea for a new QuickLesson.  I'll likely post it later today—with a much fuller answer than I could give you in this forum.

Thanks.

Erick, you're right, editors like brevity. Then, to frustrate us, they tell us that we need to be much more explicit on this-or-that. All things considered, as both an editor and a writer, I'd say say that editors of peer-reviewed journals want us to cut verbal fat, but provide enough explicit details in our citations for them and readers to understand the who, what, when, and where of the source, the information, and the informant.

That said, without seeing the structure of what you are creating and the details you need to cite, it's just not possible for me to give you a concrete answer. We're back to where we were yesterday: The citation should support what is asserted in the text. Beyond that, these thoughts come to mind:

1. Have you found, in a peer-reviewed journal, a similar example that you can adapt?
2. Combining sources into a single citation has a long tradition behind it and is still acceptable—assuming you structure it so that the multiple sources (test kits? data-base entries?) are being cited to support the same one assertion.
3. If you are at the point that your citations would take up considerably more space on the page than the text itself, you might consider presenting your data in a different format—perhaps as a table.
4. When in doubt (and after point 1 has been addressed) do what you feel works best in your situation while meeting standards. If it's overlong, so be it. With complicated sources, your editors would much rather have too much detail than too little. Give them enough so they can understand what you're doing, and they'll then help you do any whittling that's necessary.

Linda,

First the caveats: the use of genetics for personal research on historical people is still in its nascence; and the ethical and legal issues are developing. You might get sounder advice from  Dr. Blaine Bettinger at The Genetic Genealogist or Judy G. Russell at The Legal Genealogist.  That said, our own understanding here at EE is this:

• If someone publicly posts their results, with their name attached, then they have publicized their genetic information. We are free to use it, and cite the publication.
• If someone posted their results under a kit number or pseudonym, and did not attach their actual name to their public posting, then we are free to cite the kit number or the pseudonym, but not the person.
• If we establish contact with a kit number and the person provides a name amid our private correspondence, we cannot use that person’s name in our distributed work without that person’s permission.
•  If the person died without giving that permission, then we still cannot use that person’s name because he or she likely has siblings, children, or other close family members whose genetic privacy would be violated.

If a posted kit number in a database asserts a specific line of descent from a specific person, it is not reliable evidence for our research until and unless we confirm that every generational link is soundly proved.  So, if we cannot identify that person in our distributed research, how can we validly establish the claimed line of descent? 

This last question is the purpose of that “scholarship” clause of the Genetic Genealogy Standards. It would allow us to identify the person and other information on living individuals to a skilled editor who would verify the accuracy of our conclusion while being ethically bound to divulge that information to no one else.

Linda,

So: at FTDNA or 23andMe, only our matches can see our data. But then we have a 1000+ matches. Would that be less of a "publication" than if, say, we printed 100 copies of a book and gave those away?