Bestor EN:Community Portal/deontology and methodology of Bestor
Welcome • Contribute • Writing tips • Copyrights • Contribute to Bestor FR • Contribute to Bestor NL • Questions? • Deontology and methodology • Commenting and editing notes
Contents
Below you will find some guidelines and historiographical views that the Bestor community adheres to when writing, editing or commenting.
Bestor stands for a modern historiographical approach
The Bestor project builds on the major biographical reference works that have appeared in Belgian historiography of science since the mid-nineteenth century. But at the same time, Bestor wants to subscribe to the contemporary Science Studies (STS). This historiographical movement wants to do justice to the very complex and dynamic reality of the scientific métier. Connections and networks are central to the science profession. The focus is on the embedding - spatial or otherwise - of scientists and scientific institutions in larger structures, such as the research school, the laboratory and the academy, but also in wider society, the governmental agencies, the publishing industry or the learned society. The versatility of scientists is also highlighted in today's History of Science Studies. The research of the scientist did not and will not be pushed into one disciplinary box. Multidisciplinarity, reorientation and specialisation were, on the contrary, the code words. And (s)he is not only a researcher but also a teacher, an academic member, a policy advisor, a vulgariser and - why not? - historian of science. Finally, the definition of a scientist and what it means to do science - what is science? - is challenged and broadened.
By its specific software and format, Bestor meets the multilayered dynamic reality of the historical science research better than classical encyclopaedic reference works. Particularly the use of categories and cross-references allows Bestor to break free from any rigid division into subjects, disciplines etc. and exposes science networks and links between figures, institutions and societies. By using a wide range of categories, for the first time attention is also paid to groups of scientists who have so far remained in the shadows in classic encyclopaedic reference works. These are non-academic scientists, those who did not necessarily hold a chair or an academic membership. In the meantime, Bestor has completed a number of inventory projects focusing on these groups, and especially scientists around government institutions, because they remain pre-eminently anonymous: the Royal Observatory, the Royal Meteorological Institute, the government laboratories of various ministries, the National Botanic Garden and the Royal Museums of Art and History.
The focus of Bestor, its staff and Users in the choice of their topics and in the concrete implementation of their notes should therefore be on capturing the dynamic reality of scientific research as well as possible.
Bestor as a guide and gateway to other digital sources in science history
The Bestor Project does not only aim to appeal to historians, scientists and other scholars. It also wants to open itself up to the general public, lay people interested in science, schoolchildren and students, etc. In order to achieve this goal, it must offer an accessibility that surpasses that of an encyclopaedic reference work. Bestor therefore opted for a database available online and for user-friendly software. In the spirit of its own project, Bestor also wants to show its readers the way to other digitally accessible science history works and sources. Therefore, Bestor's employees and Users are asked to pay special attention to the digital availability of the sources and works they consult and to always mention them in their notes.
On objectivity and neutrality
In its project description, Bestor undertakes to provide information that is as objective as possible, without value judgements or analysis of scientific work. Peer reviewing by historians and scientists is the best way to guarantee the correctness and objectivity of the notes. Bestor's employees and Users are asked to always keep this pillar in mind when choosing their topics and in the concrete implementation of their notes.
On plagiarism, copyrights and own research
Bestor calls on historians of science and scientists to contribute. It is logical that they should draw on their own research and findings when drafting notes. Bestor nevertheless asks that a clear textual distinction be made between established facts, scientifically supported hypotheses and personal opinions. The latter have no place in a Bestor note, nor does information that is not adequately supported by sources. A note is always a personal document. Therefore, always sign your texts and comments with your username, just as you would do for a magazine article.
Do not plagiarize. The use of unauthorised texts puts Bestor in legal trouble.
Respect copyrights.
Mutual respect is at the heart of the Bestor community
To enable good cooperation, all Users are requested to apply the general rules of courtesy in the Bestor community as well. Feel free to improve notes or comment on the discussion page but please provide arguments if desired and never be insulting or hurtful. There is a limit to freedom of expression.
