I certainly acknowledge that the unstable nature of URLs is a major problem, and I applaud iniatives like the law one you mention.
As far as JSTOR and Project Muse (and the like) are concerned, I would actually go even further, and simply list the volume, part and page numbers, just as if I'd consulted a paper copy in a library - which is what those databases effectively are. I see no particular advantage there in citing either URLs or the fact that it came from a JSTOR scan rather than Bristol Central Library - except that it offers those enterprises a bit of free advertising.
Where I have a problem is with the many citations that are not to scholarly articles, or at least not to ones held on those databases (whose number is likely to be swelled in future years in this country thanks to Open Access requirements, for reasons I went into here). In many cases there are now slightly different versions of the same article floating around - one in JSTOR perhaps, but another on the author's university's research repository. Without a URL, how can a reader know which is meant?
With non-scholarly sites the problem is even worse, as they tend to be less stable, may lack "proper" titles and authors, etc. A URL plus date of access is not much help, but it at least gives the reader a snapshot of where the writer was looking. "Harry Potter Website" and the like is no use to anyone.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-10-16 12:57 pm (UTC)As far as JSTOR and Project Muse (and the like) are concerned, I would actually go even further, and simply list the volume, part and page numbers, just as if I'd consulted a paper copy in a library - which is what those databases effectively are. I see no particular advantage there in citing either URLs or the fact that it came from a JSTOR scan rather than Bristol Central Library - except that it offers those enterprises a bit of free advertising.
Where I have a problem is with the many citations that are not to scholarly articles, or at least not to ones held on those databases (whose number is likely to be swelled in future years in this country thanks to Open Access requirements, for reasons I went into here). In many cases there are now slightly different versions of the same article floating around - one in JSTOR perhaps, but another on the author's university's research repository. Without a URL, how can a reader know which is meant?
With non-scholarly sites the problem is even worse, as they tend to be less stable, may lack "proper" titles and authors, etc. A URL plus date of access is not much help, but it at least gives the reader a snapshot of where the writer was looking. "Harry Potter Website" and the like is no use to anyone.