[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
learning

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 5270)
Message
File  []
close
Slovenian Heat Supply I.png
527052705270
>> No. 5270 Anonymous
17th April 2014
Thursday 12:52 pm
5270 spacer
Hey /uni/

Does anyone know the norms around using a modified illustration in a report? To what lengths does one need to go to explain where it's from, and why it's modified? For example, in my case, if I were feeling meticulous the citation would read 'graph by x, borrowed from a report by y, using figures from z, then modified my me using figures from z, but found in incomplete form in a report by aa, which explains the difference in presentation'. Is all that really necessary?

<== It's not that one, by the way. I'm still working on it.
Expand all images.
>> No. 5271 Anonymous
17th April 2014
Thursday 1:08 pm
5271 spacer
>>5270
My first instinct as a pleb would be to just tag it with multiple references and cite the lot, since it would in effect be an original synthesis derived from those sources. But then I'm a pleb, not an academic.
>> No. 5272 Anonymous
17th April 2014
Thursday 1:21 pm
5272 spacer
>>5270
Is it not an option to just find the raw data, cite it, and make your own graph?
>> No. 5273 Anonymous
17th April 2014
Thursday 1:52 pm
5273 spacer
>>5272
I believe the way they do it in the literature is "Replotted with data from Smith (1998)."
>> No. 5274 Anonymous
17th April 2014
Thursday 5:08 pm
5274 spacer
>>5272

I've done that in most cases; in this one however
a) I can't find the raw data on z's website
b) I can illustrate my point without, so it's not worth ploughing that much time into scouring the web / library for them.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password