Can't believe I've got to the end of my PhD before asking this one! I want to cite a work whose copyright date is 1996 but whose first paperback edition (the one I'm referencing) is 1999. Which date is correct?
-
4I think this is a case similar to the question What year to use when citing second editions of books. Therefore, I would cite the date of the writing you are actually reading (1999)– user7112Commented Nov 12, 2013 at 19:58
Add a comment
|
4 Answers
I have actually asked a librarian about this issue as it came up for me in the past.
She told me to cite the exact copy that I am reading. If what you are reading is the first paperback edition (usually the inside left initial pages will have information about this), then do cite that.
-
If I had a dollar for every time I had to correct what a university librarian told me about anything book or library related, I would ... have many dollars. Being a librarian doesn't necessarily mean they have great insight, unfortunately.– SverreCommented Oct 25, 2014 at 14:09
-
3In this case, however, the librarian is correct. Cite the exact edition of the work you are actually reading with your own eyes.– JeffECommented Oct 25, 2014 at 15:26
-
@JeffE Depending on how "cite" is interpreted. Given the OP's question, I interpreted it as meaning
1999. But I think this is wrong, as indicated in my answer. If1999is not the intended interpretation, then this answer doesn't really answer the OP's question.– SverreCommented Oct 25, 2014 at 16:40
The purpose of giving details in the citation (rather than just saying "according to Joe Bloggs") is to allow other people to find the cited work. Year of publication is something that could plausibly help somebody find the work; copyright date is not, so cite the year of publication.
answered Oct 25, 2014 at 9:02
You should give the bibliographic information that the book gives you. Nothing more, nothing less. You should definitely cite the year that the publication itself puts as the year of publication (usually after a copyright symbol). Here I clearly disagree with the other answers given here. Here are a few reasons for this advice.
One, this will be the year that most, if not all, library databases will put down as the year of publication. You will confuse a lot of people if you put 1999 in your reference list when there is no 1999 entry for that book in the library catalogs.
Two, it is commonplace that the "year of publication" is different from the year it actually appeared. Sometimes journal articles from 2004 will often not appear until 2005, other times journals and publishers will deliberately back-date the publication by one year. I have books where the publication year is n, but everybody knows it actually appeared in n+1. It's not your job to be a bibliography detective and tell people when it really appeared. Your references should just say what the publication says.
Three, the reasons most paperback issues don't change the original year of publication is that the paperback copy is identical to the original hardbound copy. They are usually just photographic reprints. In many cases they won't even inform you when the reprint occurred - it'll just say something like "3rd reprint" or "3rd print". Again, you shouldn't be a detective and try to figure out when that reprint appeared, since it is of no relevance to the readers if the reprint is identical to the original.
So this is what you should do:
If the reprint/paperback issue gives the original year of publication, but also tells you something about it being a reprint, then add the information about the reprint as a note, e.g. Johnson, John. 1996. A book about nothing. Oxford University Press. 3rd reprint, 1999.
If you really care (like I do), get the original. I know most people don't bother, but I always do :)
-
Your advice is essentially the same as the others. Cite the information provided in the book.– aeismailCommented Oct 25, 2014 at 16:04
-
1@aeismail Except that all the others say you should cite the year of the paperback (1999), whereas I say you should cite the year of the original publication (1996) if that is given as the main publication year. And that was, after all, the OP's question.– SverreCommented Oct 25, 2014 at 16:38
-
Usually paperbacks do not cite a different date unless the content has changed and a new copyright has been secured.– aeismailCommented Oct 25, 2014 at 17:50
-
1@aeismail That's exactly what I said in my answer, too. But in some cases, the paperback will retain the original year of publication for copyright reasons, yet still mention the year of the reprint. The OP wondered what to do in those cases. And that's what my answer is mainly about.– SverreCommented Oct 25, 2014 at 17:57
APA 7th ed. says use both dates. 1996/1999. Do this for works (same edition) that have been reprinted, republished, reissued, or translated. Check your style manual.
As you know, the purpose of the reference is to (1) credit the originator of the idea, and (2) provide enough information that readers can locate the source information. One of the reasons for including the date of the reprint you have is that if you reference page numbers in your work, they could be different in the paperback edition you have than in the original hardback printing.
