X-Planes: X-39, Reserved but Never Assigned

Nov 14, 2025 • 160 min read • 35354 words • Comments

Filed under: aerospace, history, engineering

Every other article in this series is about an aircraft. This one is about a number that never became one. The X-39 designation was reserved on 23 April 1997 for the Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements programme of the Air Force Research Laboratory, and it was never assigned to anything, because the written request that would have assigned it was never submitted. This is the fortieth article in the X-Planes series, following the X-1, the X-2, the X-3, the X-4, the X-5, the X-6, the X-7, the X-8, the X-9, the X-10, the X-11, the X-12, the X-13, the X-14, the X-15, the X-16, the X-17, the X-18, the X-19, the X-20, the X-21, the X-22, the X-23, the X-24, the X-25, the X-26, the X-27, the X-28, the X-29, the X-30, the X-31, the X-32, the X-33, the X-34, the X-35, the X-36, the X-37, and the X-38.

A gap in a numbered series invites a particular kind of reading. The X-designations are a public register of experimental aircraft, so a missing number looks like withheld information. Missing numbers in the military series have drawn that speculation, as the F-19 and the numbers F-112 to F-116 did, and at least some of the latter were assigned to secret aircraft [Missing USAF and DOD Aircraft Designations]. The X-39 does not reward that reading. Its gap was produced by two documents that were never written. The more consequential of the two is not the request that would have created the designation but the cancellation that would have released the number for somebody else.

This article’s finding concerns the register, and aviation is incidental to it. The numbering is not a record of aircraft. It is a record of correspondence about aircraft, and the two come apart in a way that the X-39 makes unusually legible.

This article carries every section of the series order, although there is no vehicle here to dimension and no keystone question to derive. Padding a short article would misrepresent the record as richer than it is, so the sections on sizing, dependent systems and flight say that they are empty and why, and stop there. The absence of a vehicle does not excuse a survey, and this article surveys the literature that bears on its subject in place of the literature that surrounds its series. The designations come from the tri-service system adopted in 1962, which remains the framework for every number in this series [United States Department of Defense Aerospace Vehicle Designation].

The Research Question

The X-39 had no research question of its own, because there was never a vehicle to carry one. The number was held for a demonstrator that the Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements programme expected to need, and that demonstrator was never designed. What the record supports is a question the programme asked before any vehicle existed, which was whether its candidate technologies needed flight validation on a new airframe at all [Cupstid 1997].

This article can settle a different question, one that concerns the register. It asks what a gap in a numbered series of experimental aircraft means when no aircraft, no refusal and no secret stands behind it. The sections that follow answer that question from the governing instructions and the designation surveys, and they leave the aviation question where the programme left it, unanswered by flight.

Programme Origin

The reservation is dated precisely and the source is explicit about its status. Andreas Parsch’s survey of missing United States Air Force and Department of Defense designations records that X-39 was reserved on 23 April 1997 for the Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements programme of the Air Force Research Laboratory, and that no formal written request to allocate X-39 to that programme was ever put forward, so the designation remained officially unassigned [Missing USAF and DOD Aircraft Designations].

Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements, abbreviated FATE, was a technology programme rather than an aircraft programme, and it was a subset of the national Fixed Wing Vehicle effort. It was sponsored by Wright Laboratory at Dayton, Ohio, which was merged into the Air Force Research Laboratory in 1997 [Wright Laboratory]. Its stated purpose was to develop technologies that would become the foundation for the next generation of combat aircraft, and the candidate technologies named in the public description include affordable low-observable data systems, the active aeroelastic wing, robust composite sandwich structures, advanced compact inlets, photonic vehicle management systems, self-adaptive flight controls, and electric flight control actuation [X-39, Federation of American Scientists] [Jenkins, Landis and Miller, American X-Vehicles].

The programme was organised in three phases and only the first was ever executed. Phase I of FATE I was to identify which technologies required flight validation. Phase II of FATE I was to produce preliminary vehicle design concepts, a demonstrator system, and demonstration plans. FATE II was to build and flight test the demonstrator [Lockheed Martin FATE briefing]. The X-39 designation attached to that third phase, since a research designation is for a vehicle and the vehicle was FATE II’s product.

Two contractors executed Phase I between June and October 1997. Lockheed Martin performed its study from June through October 1997 under contract F33615-97-C-3804 [Lockheed Martin FATE briefing]. Boeing Phantom Works performed a parallel study whose period of performance was 30 June through 30 October 1997, with Jim Cupstid as its programme manager [Boeing FATE Block 1 Phase 1 briefing]. The study was reported in November 1997 as Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements, Block I, held by the Defense Technical Information Center under accession number ADA367849 [Cupstid 1997]. That report states that the study identified technologies with the highest potential against the Fixed Wing Vehicle goals, identified the subset that needed flight test on a new vehicle, suggested a modular vehicle that could flight validate them, and prepared a rough-order-of-magnitude cost estimate for a follow-on programme to build and fly it.

The Lockheed Martin briefing survives in full at fifty-eight slides and is the most detailed public account of what Phase I concluded [Lockheed Martin FATE briefing, full deck]. A ranking exercise selected five technologies as those requiring flight demonstration, being the compact inlet, the conformal fluidic nozzle, tailless technologies, the continuous aerodynamic control surface and the lambda wing [FATE, five technologies selected]. The concluding slide is the one that matters for the designation. It reports that the five selected technologies achieve three of the six Fixed Wing Vehicle goals, that further technologies would be needed to meet the cost goals, and that integrating them into an existing vehicle would require substantial modification [FATE, conclusions and recommendations].

That last finding is the technical case for a new airframe, and therefore for a new design number. A technology that can be demonstrated on an existing aircraft needs no new designation. Both contractors concluded that these could not be, Boeing recommending a modular vehicle and Lockheed Martin reporting that an existing one would need substantial modification. Hence the reservation made sense in April 1997, and hence it became worthless when the Air Force declined to build the vehicle.

Note the order of events. The designation was reserved on 23 April 1997 [Missing USAF and DOD Aircraft Designations]. The Boeing study that was to determine whether a demonstrator was needed at all began its period of performance on 30 June 1997, sixty-eight days later [Boeing FATE Block 1 Phase 1 briefing]. The number was spoken for before the study that would justify it had started.

The demonstrator was then cut. The Air Force dropped the Fixed Wing Vehicle demonstrator element of FATE, and the reason reported in the trade press was that it would duplicate work already planned under the Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicle project of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The programme was to continue as technology development making increased use of demonstrator aircraft that already existed, among them the X-36 [US Air Force cuts fixed wing FATE demonstrator plans], and Phase I of FATE I was used as a starting point for the Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicle Advanced Technology Demonstration, which replaced the FATE activity altogether [Lockheed Martin FATE briefing] [Boeing FATE briefing, transition to UCAV-ATD]. The Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle demonstration that followed did receive a research designation, the X-45 [Boeing X-45] [Jenkins, Landis and Miller, American X-Vehicles].

So the vehicle the number was held for was never designed, let alone built. Phase 2 of the Fixed Wing Vehicle programme would have addressed the last four of its seven objectives, and Wright Laboratory chose not to proceed with it in favour of the transition to the Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicle Advanced Technology Demonstration [Boeing FATE briefing, transition to UCAV-ATD]. The article infers from that cut, and from the absence of any trace in the sources consulted, that there was no airframe, no wind-tunnel campaign, no contractor mock-up and no cancelled production order. There is a reserved number, a set of technology studies, and a decision not to proceed.

Why the Designation Was Never Assigned

The governing instruction is unambiguous about what makes a designation real, and the X-39 never met the test. Air Force Joint Instruction 16-401, issued on 9 September 1994 by the Secretaries of the Air Force and the Navy and therefore the version in force in April 1997, states at paragraph 3.1 that the Military Departments must submit a written request for assignment of a distinctive Mission Design Series designator as early as possible in the development cycle, that requests travel through the department single point of contact to the Aeronautical Systems Center, which assigns the designator and transmits the request onward for processing and approval, as paragraph 3.2 sets out. Its statement of responsibilities places approval with the office serving as the Department of Defense executive agent. Paragraph 3.1 also settles the matter with the sentence do not use Mission Design Series designators before approval [Air Force Joint Instruction 16-401].

The instruction implements Department-level policy and does not stand alone [Air Force Joint Instruction 16-401]. The naming and designating authority is established at Department of Defense level [DoD Instruction 4120.15], and the approved designators themselves were published in a single Department-wide list, DoD 4120.15-L, whose stated purpose is to list approved designators and popular names [DoD 4120.15-L].

That list can be checked, and checking it is better than asserting from it. The edition of 12 May 2004, which the current instruction still lists among its references, carries an appendix of approved aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicle designators running to more than sixty pages. Its X-series entries include X-35A, X-36A, X-37A, X-38A, X-40A and X-40B, each with a manufacturer, an engine count and a one-line description, and they appear in a single contiguous passage. There is no X-39 entry anywhere in the document [DoD 4120.15-L].

That absence corroborates the non-assignment without demonstrating it, and the difference should be kept. X-33 and X-34 are also absent from the same list, and both of those were substantial programmes that NASA cancelled in March 2001 before either vehicle had flown free [Jenkins, Landis and Miller, American X-Vehicles], so absence from the 2004 edition is consistent with more than one history. What the list establishes is that the X-39 is not among the approved designators of record while its immediate neighbours on both sides are. The demonstrative evidence that no request was ever submitted remains Parsch’s, and this is independent corroboration of it from the primary list.

No such request was submitted for the X-39, so the instruction’s process never began [Missing USAF and DOD Aircraft Designations]. The reason is not mysterious and does not require a hypothesis about secrecy. The request would have been made when the demonstrator entered development, and the demonstrator never entered development. The programme was cut between the Phase I studies and the Phase II work on its remaining objectives, and the paperwork that would have converted a reservation into a designation had no occasion to be written [Boeing FATE briefing, transition to UCAV-ATD].

This distinguishes the X-39 sharply from the other anomalies in the series, and the distinction is one of kind rather than degree. The X-23 was requested and the request was disapproved in 1965 on the ground that the system covered manned aircraft only. The X-52 was requested in 2006 and refused because of possible confusion with the B-52 series, and the X-53 designation was assigned instead [Missing USAF and DOD Aircraft Designations]. Those are decisions, and a decision leaves a record and a reason. The X-39 was never refused by anybody. It was never asked for, and an omission leaves neither a record nor a reason. Every source accordingly reduces its entry to a date, a programme name, and a negative.

Sizing From First Principles

There was no vehicle to size, and this section records that absence without inventing one. Sizing in this series derives a vehicle’s dimensions from the quantity it existed to measure. The FATE demonstrator never reached the Phase II work that was to produce preliminary vehicle design concepts, so no mass, wing area, thrust or envelope was ever stated for it [Lockheed Martin FATE briefing].

The surviving statements about the intended vehicle are qualitative. Boeing suggested a modular vehicle that could flight validate the selected technologies [Cupstid 1997], and Lockheed Martin reported that integrating them into an existing vehicle would require substantial modification [FATE, conclusions and recommendations]. Neither statement carries a dimension.

The only quantity in this article with a binding constraint is the design number. That constraint is administrative in character, and What the Data Changed states it formally.

Dependent Systems

No dependent systems exist, since nothing was built for them to depend on. The record names the technologies a demonstrator would have carried, and Phase I ranked five of them, the compact inlet, the conformal fluidic nozzle, tailless technologies, the continuous aerodynamic control surface and the lambda wing, as requiring flight demonstration [FATE, five technologies selected]. Those are candidate payloads for a vehicle, not systems of one, and no source describes how any of them would have been integrated, powered or controlled on a specific airframe.

The nuclear turbojet that shares the string is not a dependent system of this designation. It was a General Electric engine built from the J47 [General Electric J47] for a different aircraft, the X-6 [Bernier 2025], and the article treats it only to show that the same string names unrelated hardware.

The Flight Test Record

The flight test record of the X-39 is empty. No vehicle was assigned the designation, so no vehicle flew under it. The Fixed Wing Vehicle demonstrator was cut before Phase II, and the work it was to perform passed to the Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicle Advanced Technology Demonstration and to demonstrator aircraft that already existed [US Air Force cuts fixed wing FATE demonstrator plans]. Whatever those programmes flew, they flew under other designations.

The engines that carried the same string did not fly either. The museum account places them on a ground test stand in 1956, intended for the X-6, which would have flown them had its programme survived [Bernier 2025].

Comparison With Ground Prediction

The ground predictions are all from the Phase I studies, and no flight data exist against which to test them. Lockheed Martin’s ranking concluded that the five selected technologies would achieve three of the six Fixed Wing Vehicle goals, that further technologies would be needed to meet the cost goals, and that an existing vehicle would need substantial modification to carry them [FATE, conclusions and recommendations]. Boeing prepared a rough-order-of-magnitude cost estimate for a follow-on programme to build and fly a demonstrator [Cupstid 1997].

None of those claims met a flight test under this designation. The demonstrator was cut, so neither the goal attainment nor the cost estimate was ever checked against a flown vehicle. This article cannot report agreement or disagreement, only that the comparison was never made.

The one prediction the record does resolve is administrative. The reservation of 23 April 1997 assumed that a vehicle would follow and would need a number. The vehicle did not follow, and the consequences of that failed assumption for the register are taken up under What the Data Changed.

What the Data Changed

The Reservation Had No Standing in the Instruction

The regulation that governs designations does not describe the act that consumed the X-39. Air Force Joint Instruction 16-401 describes requesting, assigning, and approving [Air Force Joint Instruction 16-401]. It does not describe a programme office reserving a design number in advance of a request. Parsch’s account of the allocation process in practice supplies the missing step, and describes it as an informal one, in which somebody from the programme office contacts the Department of Defense control point for discussion, and if a designation is tentatively established then the Mission Design Series is regarded as reserved [Allocation of Official Aerospace Vehicle MDS Designations].

The same source states the consequence of stopping there. It records that if the informal step is never followed by the written request, the result is a reserved designation that is never officially requested, let alone assigned, and that this has happened for the design numbers A-11, C-30 and C-36, V-17, V-19 and V-21, and X-39, effectively producing gaps in the lists of allocated designations [Allocation of Official Aerospace Vehicle MDS Designations].

So the X-39 was removed from circulation by an act the written procedure does not provide for. The instruction uses the word differently, and the two senses need separating. The joint instruction as reissued on 14 April 2005 provides at paragraph 5 that the assigning authority will assign and reserve the next available consecutive design number within each basic mission for new vehicles [Air Force Joint Instruction 16-401, 2005]. That reservation is performed by the assigning authority as part of handling a written request. The reservation that consumed the X-39 was initiated before any written request existed, by the party that would have submitted one [Allocation of Official Aerospace Vehicle MDS Designations]. The two acts share a word and nothing else.

The instruction has been reissued since, and the changes answer three questions this article would otherwise have to leave open. The current joint instruction is dated 3 November 2020 and carries the Army and Navy numbers alongside the Air Force one [Air Force Instruction 16-401, 2020].

Reserving a design number in advance of a request is still not a procedure. The word appears in the current text for the approving authority’s retained powers and for the Reserve components, and nowhere as something a programme office may do to a number [Air Force Instruction 16-401, 2020]. Twenty-three years after the X-39 was lost to it, the act remains undescribed.

Skipping a number, by contrast, is now explicitly authorised. The current instruction states at attachment 2 that the approving authority reserves the authority to skip design number at discretion [Air Force Instruction 16-401, 2020]. What was an accident of correspondence in 1997 is now a stated discretionary power. The change concerns the character of the gaps and does not alter their number.

A retirement procedure exists, but it is not a release mechanism. The current instruction carries a section on the retirement and reactivation of a designator, with eligibility conditions for each, and states that a retired designator cannot be used again to identify another aerospace vehicle [Air Force Instruction 16-401, 2020]. The 1994 instruction already placed a designator on a retired list once all of its vehicles had left the inventory [Air Force Joint Instruction 16-401], and the 2005 edition added reactivation for vehicles returned to that designator [Air Force Joint Instruction 16-401, 2005]. No edition provides a way to give up a reserved number so that another vehicle can take it. Retirement applies to designators that were assigned, and the X-39 never was. The newer document repeats the same gap.

One further change bears on the check made above. The current instruction records the cancellation of DoD 4120.15-L as the publicly accessible database of designators, replaced by a listing on a Department web service [Air Force Instruction 16-401, 2020]. The 2004 edition examined here is therefore the last public snapshot of the approved list, a status that justified checking the absence of the X-39 from it directly.

The System Provided for Reserving Names and Not Numbers

The asymmetry is explicit in the text and it runs the wrong way. The same joint instruction states at paragraph 16 that manufacturers or military services may reserve a set of names for future models for their exclusive use [Air Force Joint Instruction 16-401, 2005]. There is no corresponding sentence anywhere for design numbers.

A popular name is a marketing asset and a design number is a structural index. The instruction anticipated that a manufacturer would want to hold a name against future use and wrote a provision for it, while the numbering, consumed consecutively and impossible to replenish, was left with no reservation provision at all. The result was not that numbers went unreserved. It was that they were reserved anyway, through an informal channel with no rule attached, and therefore with no rule governing release.

The Numbering Has a Binding Constraint and It Can Be Written Down

The numbering has a binding constraint, and the instruction states it. Design numbers run consecutively from 1 to 999 within a basic mission, and the assigning authority assigns the next available consecutive number [Air Force Joint Instruction 16-401, 2005]. A reserved number can be reused only if its reservation is cancelled before the next number is allocated [Allocation of Official Aerospace Vehicle MDS Designations]. It is a finite resource consumed in one direction, and the argument about permanence is built on it, so the relations below write it out in symbols.

Let $t$ denote time, let $A(t)$ be the set of design numbers already allocated within a basic mission at time $t$, and let $R(t)$ be the set reserved but not yet allocated. A number is unavailable when it lies in either set, so the unavailable set is their union.

\[U(t) = A(t) \cup R(t) \tag{1}\]

The instruction directs the assigning authority to issue the next available consecutive design number, so the number it would issue at time $t$, written $m(t)$, is the smallest natural number not currently unavailable.

\[m(t) = \min \left\{ n \in \mathbb{N} : n \notin U(t) \right\} \tag{2}\]

One property comes from the practice and cannot be derived from that definition, and the distinction matters. Read literally, the minimum would fall again whenever a lower number was released, as happened to C-16. What the documented practice adds is that a release helps only while the sequence still stands at the number, so once a higher number has been issued the authority does not come back for the one it passed [Allocation of Official Aerospace Vehicle MDS Designations]. The rule is empirical, a description of how the office behaves, and the definition does not entail it. The argument below depends on it.

For a design number $r$, let $\tau_r$ be the moment the sequence passes it, being the first time the next issue exceeds it.

\[\tau_r = \inf \left\{ t : m(t) > r \right\} \tag{3}\]

Let $t_c(r)$ be the time at which a reservation of $r$ is cancelled by its original requester, taken as infinite when no cancellation is ever filed. Recovery is possible exactly when the cancellation precedes the passage. The relation below rewrites Parsch’s stated rule in one line.

\[\operatorname{recoverable}(r) \iff t_c(r) < \tau_r \tag{4}\]

The asymmetry of the previous subsection now yields a formal consequence. The instruction supplies a route by which numbers enter $R$ and prescribes no procedure for removing them, so in the absence of an informal cancellation the reserved set only grows.

\[R(t_1) \subseteq R(t_2) \quad \text{whenever} \quad t_1 \leq t_2 \tag{5}\]

The permanent gaps are the reserved numbers the sequence has already gone past, and that set inherits the same monotonicity.

\[G(t) = \left\{ n \in R(t) : n < m(t) \right\} \tag{6}\]

A register built this way accumulates holes and has no mechanism for closing them. The gaps at A-11, C-30, C-36, V-17, V-19, V-21 and X-39 are not a list of unrelated administrative accidents. They are the elements of $G$, and the set has no rule that could ever remove one.

The Gap Is Permanent Because a Second Document Was Also Missing

This part of the record changes how the gap should be read, and it concerns recovery, where earlier subsections concerned creation. A reservation that leads nowhere does not have to be permanent. A number can be recovered, and the condition is precise. Parsch records that if a reservation is explicitly cancelled by the original requester before the next number is allocated, the number can effectively be reused, and gives the C-16 designation as a case where that happened [Allocation of Official Aerospace Vehicle MDS Designations].

Nobody cancelled the X-39 reservation, and the window in which cancelling it would have helped was short [Allocation of Official Aerospace Vehicle MDS Designations]. The X-40A designation was allocated in 1997, initially to the Space Maneuver Vehicle and soon reassigned to the Integrated Technology Test Bed, the ninety percent scale unpowered vehicle that carried it into flight [Boeing X-37 and X-40]. The FATE demonstrator was cut after the Phase I studies concluded on 30 October 1997, and the cut was reported on 17 December 1997 [US Air Force cuts fixed wing FATE demonstrator plans]. So the next number was allocated in the same year the X-39 was reserved, and the demonstrator that justified the reservation was cut in that year too.

The ordering of those events is not established, because the calendar is not. The record accessible here dates the X-40A allocation to 1997 without a month, so this article does not claim that the X-39 reservation displaced the X-40 allocation, and the relative order of those two events within 1997 is left open. The same missing month leaves open whether the next design number was allocated before or after the demonstrator was cut, since the cut falls between 30 October and 17 December 1997. The conclusion does not depend on either ordering, because recovering the number needed a cancellation and none was ever filed.

The instantiation is short enough to check by eye. For the X-39 the design number is $r = 39$, and no cancellation was ever filed, so the cancellation time is infinite and the recovery condition fails against any finite passage time whatever.

\[t_c(39) = \infty \quad \implies \quad \operatorname{recoverable}(39) = \text{false} \tag{7}\]

The dated part of the argument is the ordering of the passage against the cut of the programme, and the record bounds both without ordering them. The X-40A allocation places the passage inside 1997, and the cut came after the Phase I studies ended on 30 October 1997 and no later than the trade report of 17 December 1997, at a time written $t_{\text{cut}}$.

\[\tau_{39} \leq \text{31 December 1997}, \qquad \text{30 October 1997} < t_{\text{cut}} \leq \text{17 December 1997} \tag{8}\]

The two bounds overlap, leaving the order of the two events undetermined. If the sequence passed 39 before the cut, the number was lost while the demonstrator was still a live proposal, and a release filed after the cut would have achieved nothing. If the cut came first, a release filed between the cut and the passage would have recovered the number. No release was filed, so the number was lost either way, and the missing month decides only whether anyone ever had the chance to save it once the reservation had become pointless.

The bounds are silent on one point. They do not place the reservation time $t_{\text{res}}$ of 23 April 1997 relative to $\tau_{39}$, because the X-40A allocation is dated to 1997 without a month. Both orderings remain open and the conclusion holds under either, since a cancellation time of infinity fails the condition regardless of when the passage occurred.

The Designator Escaped the System That Never Issued It

The instruction says not to use a designator before approval, and the X-39 has been in continuous public use for nearly thirty years without ever being approved. The Federation of American Scientists published a page headed X-39 under a military aircraft heading, which correctly reports that the designator is apparently unassigned while nonetheless presenting it as an entry alongside aircraft that exist [X-39, Federation of American Scientists]. The number is in public use, the very use the instruction forbids before approval.

Here the divergence stated at the top of this article takes its sharpest form. The register of designations and the population of aircraft are different things, maintained by different processes, and neither is a reliable index of the other. This series has now met the divergence from both ends. The X-35 was a real aircraft that flew a competition, and the X-35 article finds its literature under its own designation thin because the work continued under the production aircraft’s name. The X-39 is the mirror image, a designation with a substantial public footprint and no aircraft behind it at all.

The Same String Names an Engine That Ran

An X-39 did exist, but it was not an aircraft. General Electric applied the designation to J47 turbojets rebuilt to take their heated compressed air from a reactor heat exchanger rather than from burning fuel. Those engines ran. The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum records that General Electric successfully operated its X-39 engines on a ground test stand in 1956, and that the Convair X-6 was to have carried four of them beneath its belly under the reactor [Bernier 2025]. They were operated against three successive reactors, the Heat Transfer Reactor Experiments numbered one, two and three, under the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion programme established by the Air Force and the Atomic Energy Commission in 1951 [General Electric J47] [Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion]. The X-6 is the seventh article in this series, and had the programme survived it would have flown them.

The two sources disagree on what counted as one engine and the disagreement is left standing. The museum account has the X-6 carrying four X-39 engines, while the encyclopaedia describes the X-39 as consisting of two modified J47 units [General Electric J47]. Both can be true if the designation names a unit of two, but no source consulted here says so, so no count is asserted.

Two registers therefore contain the same string and disagree completely about what it denotes. In the aircraft designation series, X-39 names nothing and never did. In the engine designation series, X-39 names hardware that operated for years and is documented in detail. The two have no relationship beyond the coincidence, since the engine string comes from a General Electric programme and the aircraft number from the military designation system.

The encyclopaedia records the collision without resolving it. There is no article for the aircraft designation at all. What exists is a disambiguation page listing two senses, the nuclear turbojet and the reserved aircraft number, with the latter pointing back to the technology programme rather than to any vehicle [X39]. A designation that was never assigned has been reduced to one line on a page whose purpose is to warn readers that the term is ambiguous. The page fairly summarises the designation’s standing.

A reader who treats the gaps in the X-series as evidence of concealment is reading the wrong artefact. The gaps record the failure modes of a correspondence process. Some of them, such as the X-52, record a decision. This one records an informal contact that was never followed by a letter, and a second letter that was never sent to undo the first.

The Contemporary Literature

Cluster	Records
Recordkeeping, retention and provenance	220
Archival silence and the colonial archive	161
Persistent identifiers and link rot	105
Authority control and registers of names	62
Numbering plans, number portability, domain names and address space	51
The argument from silence and absence of evidence	51
Archival appraisal and selection	46
Nuclear propulsion of aircraft	40
Classification and administrative categories	29
Military designation and nomenclature systems	2
The Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements programme	1
Total	768

This article’s subject is not an aircraft, so its survey is not of the aerospace literature. A survey of that literature would not bear on whether a letter was written in 1997. The subject is what a gap in an official register means, and there is a large and current literature on that question, spread across archival science, infrastructure studies, identifier administration and the logic of inference from absence. Two smaller clusters hold the literature of the programmes the number and its string belonged to.

The survey holds 768 records in eleven clusters. Two of them, the Boeing Phase I report and the museum account of the nuclear turbojet, are among the argument’s sources. The rest are not cited as evidence for any claim about the X-39, and no paper among them has been read beyond its title, although every title has been read so that records sharing only a word with the subject are excluded. They are a map of the surrounding literature, offered so that a reader who wants to pursue the general question has somewhere to start.

Archival Silence and the Record That Was Never Made

Archival science has a name for what the X-39 is, and a literature about it. A silence is a place where the record is absent, and the field’s central claim is that archives are made by the same exercise of power that leaves their gaps, so that a silence carries information about the institution rather than merely lacking it [Schwartz and Cook 2002] [Harris 2002a] [Halidu 2025]. The literature studies the destruction of records that were made [Dolganov 2025], and treats a refusal to record as an act with consequences [Goeman-Shulsky 2022]. This article makes the same claim about a designation gap.

The Argument From Silence, as Method and as Fallacy

Inferring from an absence is a recognised move with a recognised failure mode. The argument from silence is treated in historiography [Lange 1966], in biblical and religious-historical scholarship [Duncan 2012] [Vinzent 2021], and in informal logic as the argument from ignorance [Cummings 2015] [Lisanyuk and Khamidov 2021]. The literature asks when an absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence [Thompson and Scurich 2018], and treats the question as one of rational and Bayesian inference [Hsu et al. 2016] [Taroni et al. 2019]. The condition this article relies on is that an absence supports an inference only where the record would be expected to speak. The X-39 meets that condition, since an approved designator would appear in a list whose purpose is to list approved designators.

Classification Systems as Infrastructure

A designation system is a classification, and there is a field that studies classifications as infrastructure. Its founding study, Sorting Things Out, holds that classification has consequences beyond the sorting it performs, and treats classifications as large-scale infrastructures [Classification and Large-Scale Infrastructures 2000] [Categorical Work and Boundary 1999]. Its residual categories, the places where whatever does not fit is put, receive separate study [Star and Bowker 2007] [Star 2010], and administrative categories are studied as instruments that act on whoever is sorted into them [Vetters 2007]. A gap in a numbering series is a residual of this kind, an empty place in the scheme.

Identifier Assignment, Persistence and Reuse

The rule that removed the X-39 from use is a live design question in identifier systems. The persistent identifier literature names uniqueness and persistence among the requirements of a trusted identifier [Lehnert et al. 2019], and measures what happens to references when persistence fails [Zittrain and Albert 2013] [Sadatmoosavi et al. 2026]. Reuse is rarely the subject of a title, and the titles that address it describe a reuse mechanism in one system [Yuan Shi et al. 2006] and a market in re-registering expired domain names [Salvador and Nogueira 2011]. The Mission Design Series arrives at permanence by a different route, through a practice with no written rule attached.

Administering a Finite Number Space

The X-39 is one case of a general problem, the issue of a finite space of names that cannot be replenished. Internet address space and telephone numbering are administered under that constraint. The literature gathered here treats the exhaustion of Internet address space [Boucadair et al. 2009] [Beeharry and Nowbutsing 2016], the administration of numbering [Price Controls and Numbering 2005], and the portability of a number from one holder to another [Gans et al. 2001] [Wu 2013]. Reservation and reclamation, the two acts the X-39 turns on, are almost absent from its titles, as the count under Thin Subjects shows.

Recordkeeping, Retention and the Administrative Trace

The article’s evidence is correspondence, and there is a discipline devoted to what correspondence does and does not preserve. Records management studies retention and disposition [Drewry 1955] [Records Retention Schedules 2009], the distance between what is recorded and what happened [Trace 2002], and the consequences when recordkeeping fails [Moret 2024]. The X-39 is a case where the act left no trace because the trace was the act, a reservation being nothing but the record of itself.

Maintaining a Register Over Decades

A register is not a document but a process, and the maintenance literature is about that process. In the titles gathered here, the operation with a sustained literature is authority control, the work that keeps one name attached to one person or body across a catalogue [Authority Control 2012b], together with catalogue maintenance [Oldfield 1988] and the upkeep of a master index of persons [Williams et al. 2006]. No title names the deprecation, withdrawal or retirement of an entry, the operation the X-39 needed. The Mission Design Series instruction has provided for retiring an assigned designator since at least 1994, and no edition has provided for releasing a reserved number [Air Force Joint Instruction 16-401] [Air Force Instruction 16-401, 2020].

Military Designation and Nomenclature Practice

The narrowest literature is the one closest to the subject, and it is genuinely small. Two records treat military or government designation as a system, a 1997 Air Force issuance on designating and naming defense military aerospace vehicles [Designating and Naming Defense 1997] and an appendix on aircraft nomenclature in a textbook of aircraft performance [Appendix 1997]. Dictionary and handbook entries that define a designation system are reference entries rather than research works, and the survey excludes them. That thinness is also a finding, and it explains why the authoritative account of the X-39 is a privately maintained web survey rather than a paper.

Recordkeeping, retention and provenance

Records management and the archival theory of the record. Retention and disposition schedules, recordkeeping requirements and practice in organisations of every kind, electronic records management, and provenance and original order as the principles that keep a record’s context.

220 records. [1998, RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS] [1998, Retention and Disposition of Records] [1999, Management of Active Records] [2000, Recordkeeping] [2000, Retention of Records] [2003, Records management] [2005, CHAPTER THREE. The corporate memory and Records Management] [2006, Identity, trust, evidence and the recordkeeping nexus] [2006, Legal and social relationships and the recordkeeping nexus] [2006, OSHA Recordkeeping] [2006, Recordkeeping participants legal and ethical responsibilities] [2006, Recordkeeping regulatory models in the web environment] [2006, The recordkeeping-ethics-law nexus and recordkeeping regulatory models] [2007, Records and recordkeeping] [2007, Records Management and Records Management Policies] [2009, Government Records Management/Recordkeeping] [2009, Provenance of Archival Materials] [2009, Records Retention Schedules] [2011, Oﬃce and records management] [2012, Challenges of the dynamic e-environment for records management] [2012, Critical Considerations for Records Management and Retention] [2012, Recordkeeping Requirements] [2012, Scheduling Records for Retention] [2013, Data Management and Records Retention] [2014, Documentation and Recordkeeping] [2015, Sustainable Electronic Court Records Risk Management Conceptions and Development of Framework] [2016, CHAPTER 34. CDS Records Retention] [2016, Records Management] [2016, The records management function] [2017, The Management of Native Estate Records in the NAN] [2018, Administrative Records and the Courts] [2019, Sources of Law Governing the Management of Police Records] [2021, Records Management nach ISO 15489] [2026, Medical Records as Legal Evidence Challenges in Documentation, Disclosure, and Retention in Healthcare Practice] [Abdulrahim and Zayyana 2025] [Abuzawayda et al. 2012] [Adriansyah et al. 2024] [Akussah and Asamoah 2015] [Al-Alawi 2024] [Allegrezza 2020] [An and Cook 2003] [An 2005] [Anderson 2024] [Asamoah et al. 2018] [Ataullah et al. 2008] [Ataullah and Tompa 2009] [Bachell and Barr 2014] [Bae et al. 2016] [Bahmer 1943] [Bailey 1999] [Bailey 2009] [Baker 2003] [Bantin and Bernbom 1996] [Barry 1997] [Bastian 2006] [Bastian 2020] [Bezdrabko 2019a] [Bhatia et al. 2020] [Bhatia and Wright de Hernandez 2019] [Boiteau 2024] [Borglund Erik A.M. and Anderson Karen 2011] [Brooks 2019] [Brunskill 2012a] [Brunskill 2012b] [Chalmers 1989] [Chaputula 2022] [Chartaby 1991] [Ciechanowski 2021] [Courtney 2022] [Cox 1997] [Cox 2006] [Crookston 2011] [Cumming and Findlay 2010] [Cumming 2007] [Cunliffe and Miller 1989] [Dearstyne 2006a] [Dearstyne 2006b] [Demb 2012] [Drewry 1955] [Duranti 1999] [Egbuji 1999] [Ellis 2005] [Evans et al. 2024] [Fan 2018] [Farrell 2024] [Foscarini et al. 2021] [Franks 2015] [Franks 2020] [Friedrich 2021] [Frings-Hessami and Henderson 2025] [Frings-Hessami and Oliver 2022] [Fuzeau 2005] [Fuzeau 2014] [Garaba 2026] [Ghaddar 2025] [Gill and Mitchell 1963] [Gilliland-Swetland 1991] [Golding 2019] [Gooda 2011] [Grant 2017] [Grondona et al. 2024] [Guercio et al. 2020] [Guimarães et al. 2025] [Guimarães and Tognoli 2015] [Gutterman 2023] [Hartzell 1946] [Hasan et al. 2008] [Hasan and Winslett 2010] [Henderson 2019] [Hirsch 2010] [Hofman and Katuu 2022] [Hossain et al. 2025] [Hurley et al. 2024] [Hurley 2005] [Hussin and Johare 2014] [Huvila 2008] [Ivanov 2017] [Johnson 1996] [Joseph et al. 2012] [Joseph 2016] [Kafka 2009] [Källberg 2010] [Kang and Rieh 2016] [Katuu 2023] [Katuu 2025] [Kautto and Hotti 2024] [Kavishe and Garaba 2025] [Kemoni et al. 2007] [Kemoni 1998] [Kerr 2020] [Kikki 2000] [Klareld 2018] [Xie 2015] [lacovino 2005] [Larkin 1942] [Lee 2008] [Lee 2015] [Lee 2016] [Lee-Gulley and Drudi 2022] [Lemieux 2017] [Li and Fan 2018] [Lips and Rapson 2010] [Luyombya 2011] [Machado et al. 2020] [Madayag 2025] [Malatji and Mojapelo 2025] [Manase et al. 2024] [Manoharan 2025] [Marini 2024] [Marutha 2020] [McCracken and Hogan 2021] [McDonald 1989] [McDonald 2010] [McKemmish et al. 1999] [Michetti 2016] [Min 2015] [Mitchell 1966] [Mokhtar and Yusof 2017] [Moret 2024] [Nesmith 2007] [Oladejo and Hadžidedić 2021] [Oladejo and Hofman 2023] [Overly 2021] [Pan 2017] [Park 2004] [Park 2017] [Parvez 2017] [Pestova 2019] [Piggott 2012a] [Piggott 2012b] [Pires et al. 2019] [Popovici 2015] [Pymer 2025] [Qaddoumi 2025] [Raas 1999] [Rajh 2021] [Rebuglio et al. 2025] [Reed et al. 2018] [Reed 1997] [Reed 2008] [Rees Jones 2024] [Remize 2014] [Rolan and Lewis 2024] [Rolan 2017] [Ryan 1966] [Saglam 2024] [Seol and Lee 2016] [Smoczynski 2024] [Stuart and Bromage 2010] [Sutton 2015] [Svärd 2017a] [Svärd 2017b] [Svärd 2017c] [Sweeney 2008] [Syaffieq et al. 2026] [Tanimu et al. 2016] [Tennis 2015] [Thibodeau 2016] [Thornborow 2007] [Bilić 2025] [Trace 2002] [Trace 2024] [Uhl 2001] [Upward et al. 2013] [Upward 2000] [Vasseur 2020] [de Oliveira and Panisset 2025] [Viegas et al. 2019] [Vincent et al. 2024] [Wallace 1993] [Watson 1994] [Welt 1995] [Wendelken 2023] [Wickman 2011] [Wilczek 2026] [Xie 2016] [Yusof and Chell 1999] [Zhang 2014] [Zinner Henriksen and Viborg Andersen 2008] [Zou and Park 2024]

Archival silence and the colonial archive

Absences, gaps, erasures and silences in archives, and the archive as a constructed and selective object. Of these titles, 62 name a silence and 39 name the colonial or imperial archive, which is the literature’s main case of an archive whose omissions record the institution that made it.

161 records. [1994, THREE Archival Memory and the Destruction of the Past] [2002, Six. The Imperial Archive Colonial Knowledge and Colonial Rule] [2007, 4. Collecting Colonial Postcards Gender and the Visual Archive] [2007, Introduction Of Soft and Savage Bodies in the Colonial Domestic Archive] [2009, Chapter 7. Confessing in the absence of recording linguistic and extralinguistic evidence of coercion in a police interrogation] [2013, Alienated memories migrants and the silences of the archive] [2013, Anxieties of Authorship in the Colonial Archive] [2014, Whose Lessons? Subjects of the Colonial Archive] [2015, 11 Epilogue The Colonial Gaze, History and the Archive] [2021, Archival Memory and the Destruction of the Past] [2022, 1 Colonial Listening and the Making of a Sound Archive] [2024, 4. Silences Take Two Gendered Archival Lacunae] [2024, CHAPTER TWO Silence, Perseverance, and Survival in State-Run Philippine Film Archives] [2024, Gaps in the Archive] [2025, 4 Archival Silence, Sexual Violence] [2026, Archival Absences, Silences and Fragments The Unmade and Film History] [2026, Navigating Archival Silences Through Art] [Achim 2023] [Adelusi-Adeluyi 2020] [Al-Amoudi et al. 2022] [Alexander 2005] [Araluen Corr 2018] [Arondekar 2005] [Basu 2025] [Bezdrabko 2026] [Bhowmik 2021] [Black 2024] [Blouin 1999] [Bridger and Hazan 2022] [Brooks 2005] [Bruns 2024] [Buckley 2005] [Buenrostro 2021] [Bunjun 2018] [Burke 2007] [Burke 2014] [Burke 2015] [Burton 2007] [Butler 2009] [Carlson 2021] [Chakravorty 2021] [Chatterjee 1997] [Conor and Lydon 2011] [Coombes 2016] [de Melo Fischer and Novella 2026] [Decker 2013] [Delaney 2026] [Desrochers-Turgeon 2022] [Ditzler 2014] [Diver 2024] [Dolganov 2025] [Dragojlovic 2018] [Dralle 2022] [Dunsworth 2018] [Durepos and Thurlow 2025a] [Durepos and Thurlow 2025b] [Durepos and Thurlow 2025c] [Durepos and Thurlow 2025d] [Durepos and Thurlow 2025e] [Durepos and Thurlow 2025f] [Dávila-Freire 2020] [Eadon 2019] [Ellis et al. 2026] [Emberley 1990] [Falzetti 2014] [Fithri and Basuki 2026] [Fraccaroli and Simonetto 2025] [Gauba 2024] [Glanville 2017] [Goeman-Shulsky 2022] [Golding 2022] [Gray 2019] [Gualtieri 2019] [Guberek and Hedstrom 2017] [Hager 2021] [Hagström Molin 2025] [Halidu 2025] [Han et al. 2024] [Hardy 2021] [Harris 2002a] [Harris 2002b] [Hernández 2024] [Hodder 2017] [Hogue 2020] [Horn 2020] [Huang 2020] [Hunt-Kennedy 2021] [Hyman and Mundy 2023] [Johnes 2020] [Jokić 2012] [Ketelaar 2005] [Ketzmerick-Calandrino 2024] [Khoruzhenko 2023] [Klein 2013] [Kortenaar 2025] [Koziura 2026] [Kros 2017] [Landman 2009] [Lange 2018] [Lavine and Thomas 2024] [Lee 2012] [Lihoma 2021] [Yasmina 2025] [Marraffa 2026] [Martin 2015] [Martínez 2016] [Masibi et al. 2023] [McWilliam and Shepherd 2022] [Meyer 2008] [Mills 2000] [Mithal and Paul 2024a] [Mithal and Paul 2024b] [More 2020] [Muñiz 2021] [Namhila 2004] [Netshakhuma 2019] [Niang 2026] [Nii Owoo 2025] [Olson 2023] [Papatheodorou 2021] [Patil 2024] [Pennamon and Coates 2021] [Percel 2024] [Perry 2005] [philip and Bertacco 2022] [Pigorsch and Rusinek 2026] [Prasad 2022] [Ragni 2020] [Rawat 2016] [Ray 2023] [Regidor 2023] [Rogers 2026] [Rosén 2008] [Saikia 2004] [Schwartz and Cook 2002] [Sherman et al. 2024] [Sizemore-Barber 2017] [Soares 2024] [Souchen 2021] [Sousa 2026] [Spieker 2026] [Stoler 2002] [Szikszai 2026] [Tali 2017] [Taoua 2003] [Thelin 2009] [Thompson 2019] [Tough 2011] [Urbec 2023] [Valerio 2023] [VanHaitsma 2020] [Vicente 2018] [Vizcaya 2008] [Voli and Virtù 2023] [Wanhalla 2024] [Wevers et al. 2025] [Williams 2021] [Wolf 2018] [Zeman 2023] [Özdemir and İcimsoy 2021] [Рамазанова, 2025, Types of evidence in inheritance cases in the absence of civil status records based on examples from judicial practice]

Persistent identifiers and link rot

Persistent identifier schemes and the decay of references when they fail. Digital object identifiers, researcher identifiers, handles and similar schemes, their adoption, and link rot. Of these titles, 36 name the Digital Object Identifier, 30 name ORCID and 8 name link or reference rot.

105 records. [1999, Executive briefing The Digital Object Identifier*] [2009, Digital Object Identifier DOI® System] [2009, ORCID] [2011, Digital Object Identifier DOI® System] [2015, PID Service an advanced persistent identifier management service for the Semantic Web] [2015, Your name is not good enough introducing the ORCID researcher identifier at Imperial College London] [2017, ORCID the challenge ahead] [Arroyo-Machado et al. 2025] [Arunachalam and Madhan 2021] [Awojobi 2011] [Bangert and Frances 2017] [Bellini et al. 2014] [Bellini 2019] [Berber and Yahyapour 2017] [Bordons et al. 2024] [Briguglio et al. 2014] [Bygrave et al. 2009] [Carter‐Templeton et al 2021] [Celko 2010] [Ceravolo and Bellini 2010] [Chandrakar 2006] [Craigle et al. 2022] [Cronk and Pitblado 2026] [Damasio 2013] [Dappert et al. 2017] [De Waard 2019] [Dhiman 2015] [Dreyer et al. 2019] [Dvořák et al. 2024] [Fenner et al. 2011] [Fenner 2011] [Ferreira et al. 2015] [Foley and Kochalko 2012] [Francis 2013] [Freire et al. 2023] [Goddard 2021] [Goldenberg 2014] [Gould and Praetzellis 2021] [Gould 2022] [Gómez-Ontiveros 2017] [Habermann et al. 2026] [Hardisty et al. 2019] [Hardisty et al. 2021] [Heredia and Marín-Arraiza 2022] [Heusse and Cabanac 2022] [Hisseine et al. 2024] [Islam et al. 2022] [Jain et al. 2023] [Juty et al. 2013] [Kansa and Kansa 2022] [Klein and Balakireva 2021] [Krauskopf and Salgado 2023] [Król 2019] [Kumar et al. 2015] [Kurakawa and Takeda 2012] [Lehnert et al. 2019] [Pavlovska 2017] [Liu 2021a] [Liu 2021b] [Margolis 2018] [Markwell and Brooks 2003] [Marín-Arraiza and Heredia 2021] [Marín-Arraiza and Heredia 2024] [Mayernik and Maull 2017] [Meadows et al. 2019] [Mondal and Mondal 2023] [Morgan 1998] [Nasrullah et al. 2025] [Nazaré et al. 2018] [Okune and Chan 2023] [Owango 2025] [Park et al. 2011] [Park et al. 2024] [Paskin 1999] [Paskin 2005] [Paul and Shivraj 2014] [Pires et al. 2017] [Porter et al. 2025] [Pérez-Yarza 2001] [Reuss et al. 2023] [Risher and Rosenblatt 1998] [Sadatmoosavi et al. 2026] [Saepuloh et al. 2026] [Saltzer and Kaashoek 2009] [Sayão 2007] [Scott and Thomas 2018] [Teixeira da Silva et al. 2025] [Teixeira da Silva 2024] [Testal 2001] [Thompson and Tong 2018] [Treacy and Okrent 2023] [Uchida 1999] [Van de Sompel et al. 2014] [Vasile et al. 2020] [Wang et al. 2017a] [Wang et al. 2017b] [Weigel et al. 2014] [Wojtkiewicz 2025] [Yatskiv and UKRINFORMNAUKA” 2016] [Yuan Shi et al. 2006] [Zherebchuk 2024] [Zittrain and Albert 2013] [Марушко, 2016, International identifier ORCID and its role in the global scholarly communication] [إِیمان عزیز خضر and عمار عبداللطیف زین العابدین, 2022, المعرف الرقمی للوصول إِلى المعلومات Digital Object Identifier DOI - دراسة فی ماهیته ومکوناته وفوائده للباحثین والدوریات] [عبد الحمید, 2022, “المعرف المفتوح للباحثین والمساهمین ORCID دراسة تحلیلیة لواقع استخدامه من جانب أعضاء هیئة التدریس بأقسام المكتبات والمعلومات” “ Open Researcher and Contributor ID ORCID Analytical study of the reality of its use by faculty members in library and information departments]

Authority control and registers of names

Keeping one entry per person or body in a catalogue or archive. Name authority control, archival authority-record standards, catalogue maintenance, and registers of persons.

62 records. [2008, Chapter 5 Issues of Name Authority Control in the Cataloging of Theses and Dissertations] [2012, Authority Control Experiences and Projects] [2012, Authority Control in the Context of Bibliographic Control in the Electronic Environment] [2012, Authority Control of Creators and the Second Edition of ISAAR CPF, International Standard Archival Authority Record for Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families] [2012, Authority Control State of the Art and New Perspectives] [2017, Name Authority Control] [2024, Name Authority Considerations] [Beaubien and Head 2011] [Bourdon 1992] [Burke and Shorten 2010] [Chávez-Aragón et al. 2009] [Cunningham 2008] [Danskin et al. 2011] [Delsey 2024] [Diaz-Valenzuela et al. 2010] [Dickson and Zadner 2024] [DiLauro et al. 2001] [Dragon 2009] [Dryden 2018] [Dunn 2015] [El-Sherbini 2013] [Emanuel 2011] [Fenly 1985] [Folkner and Glackin 2009] [Goldman and Smith 2024] [Harwood 1986] [Hobart 2019] [Hong et al. 2004] [Hu et al. 2004] [Kirby 2024] [Knyazeva et al. 2016] [Leuner 2021] [Lopes 1993] [MacEwan et al. 2013] [Mak 2011] [Messmer 2004] [Mihwa Lee 2012] [Neatrour and Myntti 2019] [Niu 2013] [Oldfield 1988] [Orihuela 2009] [Rankine et al. 2008] [Reid and Simmons 2018] [Ridgeway 2024] [Salo 2009] [Savoja and Vitali 2018] [Snyman and Jansen van Rensburg 1999] [Snyman and Jansen van Rensburg 2000] [Snyman and van Rensburg 2000] [Spink and Leatherbury 1994] [Szary 2006] [Taylor 2024] [Thompson 2016] [Tillett 2024] [Van Pulis 2006] [Wanigasooriya 2023] [Warnner and Brown 2001] [Waugh et al. 2014] [Williams et al. 2006] [Xia and Liu 2018] [Yamada and Inoue 2021] [Yu et al. 2019]

Numbering plans, number portability, domain names and address space

The administration of finite name and number spaces as a regulatory act. Telephone numbering plans, the portability of a number between carriers as policy, domain-name registration and the governance of the Domain Name System, and the exhaustion and allocation of Internet address space. Of these titles, 25 name number portability and 11 name domain names or the Domain Name System.

51 records. [2003, Number portability] [2005, Price controls and numbering administration Cartesian-bureaucratic issue-processing episodes] [2009, The Internet Address Space] [2012, Domain name registration systems in OECD countries surveys, illustrations and analysis] [2012, Liberalization, consumer protection and growth the tug and pull relationship in the domain name registration system] [2012, The domain name registration system an overview] [2019, A global ‘private’ regime governing the Domain Name System DNS] [Beeharry and Nowbutsing 2016] [Boucadair et al. 2009] [Buehler and Haucap 2004] [Buehler et al. 2006] [Chen et al. 2007] [Dobrovolskis 2003] [Gans et al. 2001] [Garcia‐Murillo 2007] [Ghalumyan 2017] [Ghalumyan 2018] [Gjika and Bushati 2023] [Guillermo de Jesús Valdivia-Medina 2023] [Hu et al. 2017] [Keevers 1966] [Kim 2019] [Kimutai et al. 2013] [LeeInHo 2013] [Li and Zhang 2017] [Lindsay 2016] [Merrill 2016] [Mockapetris and Dunlap 1988] [Mueller 2010] [Murugesan and Ramadass 2009] [Musiani 2016] [Musyarri 2025] [Myers 1961] [Nunn 1952a] [Nunn 1952b] [Ahmed 2026] [Osborn and Alan 2023] [Pande and Pawar 2012] [Pitt et al. 1996] [Rizal and Ali Muayyadi 2013] [Robinson 2003] [Salvador and Nogueira 2011] [Sujarittanonta 2017] [Sutherland 2007] [Tebepah 2026] [Tournier 2023] [Turnbull et al. 2010] [Usero Sánchez and Asimakopoulos 2012] [Wu 2013] [Yi-Binq Lin et al. 2003] [Zhou 2009]

The argument from silence and absence of evidence

Inference from absence, as historiography, as logic and as statistics. The argument from silence, the argument from ignorance, and the general question of when an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

51 records. [2023, Introduction Absence of Evidence or Evidence of Absence?] [Alderson 2004] [Altman and Bland 1995] [Altman and Bland 1996] [Bassetti 2017] [Batra and Rubman 2019] [Binder and Roberts 2023] [Bunce et al. 2014] [Cummings 2015] [Duncan 2012] [Fina and Hofacker 2026] [Friedland 2025] [Gardner and Gardner 1991] [Garvey 2010] [Goddard 2019] [Hartstone‐Rose 2025] [Hartung et al. 1983] [Hsu et al. 2016] [Jaykaran et al. 2011] [Jensen 2023] [서울대 철학과 교수 and Kang 2019] [Kačar 2021] [Klingbiel et al. 2017] [Kraemer 2020] [Lange 1966] [Lisanyuk and Khamidov 2021] [Loosley Leeming 2018] [McGrew 2013] [Mesicek 2014] [Michon 2015] [Nadal-Ginard et al. 2014] [Pacheco et al. 2019] [Pawel et al. 2024] [Raman and Jawitz 2021] [Rolón 2019] [Sedgwick 2011] [Sedgwick 2014] [Shah 2023] [Shaw 2006] [Shrader-Frechette 1980] [Slyomovics 2005] [Smith 2008] [Sober 2008] [Sánchez-Ramón et al. 2015] [Taroni et al. 2019] [Thompson et al. 2017] [Thompson and Scurich 2018] [Vinzent 2021] [Wu 2011] [Zarefsky 2014] [Zimmerman 2022]

Archival appraisal and selection

The decision about what is kept, and so about what will later be absent. Appraisal theory, appraisal practice in national, state and community archives, and its methods.

46 records. [2004, CHAPTER FOUR. Archival appraisal briefly reviewed in historical context] [2004, CHAPTER TWO. Appraisal and archival appraisal in modern organizations purpose, participants, roles and responsibilities] [2009, Archival Appraisal and Acquisition] [2017, Acquisition and archival appraisal] [2019, Effectiveness of Appraisal of Public Records in Tanzania Findings from President’s Office Records and Archives Management Department PO-RAMD] [Al-Samadi 2025] [Anderson et al. 2015] [Bauer and Wrisley 2020] [Bayeck et al. 2022] [Beneito Arias 2008] [Bezdrabko 2019b] [Black 2019] [Boyko 2024] [Brown 1999] [Cook 2011] [Cox 2001] [Cox 2002] [Cox 2003a] [Cox 2003b] [Cox 2003c] [Duranti 1994] [Edquist 2023] [He and Tian 2018] [Henttonen and Packalén 2023] [Hodge et al. 2022] [Hosker and Richmond 2006] [Kim and Ross 2013] [Kim 2008] [Kim 2010] [Kretzschmar 2005] [Mancuso 2013] [Ngoepe 2022] [Ngulube 2001] [Nilsson 2016] [Niu 2012] [Nunes da Silva and Parrela 2022] [Rhee 2012] [Rhee 2014] [Rhee 2016] [Roberts 2007] [Sucha-xaya 2024] [Suderman 2006] [Wallot 2006] [Walters 1996] [Wiśniewska-Drewniak 2022] [Xu et al. 2010]

Nuclear propulsion of aircraft

The programme whose General Electric engines carried the X-39 string. Aircraft nuclear propulsion at the level of the programme, its engines and powerplants, its reactor experiments and its aircraft concepts, with later studies of nuclear-powered aircraft.

The General Electric direct-air-cycle programme’s own comprehensive technical reports of 1961 and 1962 are here, among them its programme summary [Thornton et al. 1962] and a section on the XNJ140E nuclear turbojet [Layman et al. 1962], together with powerplant studies of nuclear turbojets for Pratt and Whitney engines. No title among them names the X-39 engines or the Heat Transfer Reactor Experiments, so the engine’s identity and its ground-test history in this article rest on the museum account and the encyclopaedia, as the section headed Epistemic State records.

Classification and administrative categories

Classification schemes as artefacts. The consequences of classification, residual categories, and the categories a bureaucracy constructs and applies.

29 records. [1992, Classification system Old and new categories] [1999, Categorical Work and Boundary Infrastructures Enriching Theories of Classification] [2000, Classification and Large-Scale Infrastructures] [Alpaten and Khurdianto 2026] [Auther 2002] [Barron et al. 2016] [Cornwell 2019] [De Zwart 2005] [Delaisse et al. 2025] [Dousa 2017] [Goldstein 2005] [Hickman and Hill 2010] [Horváth 2006] [Jansen 2013] [Karlander 2017] [Klaes 2003] [Li 2025] [Lyna and Bulten 2021] [Mennerat François 1997] [Moss 1964] [Moynihan et al. 2023] [Olson 2007] [Parotte 2021] [Rajaram and Arendas 2013] [Star and Bowker 2007] [Star 2010] [Vetters 2007] [Williams 2003] [Willis 1993]

Military designation and nomenclature systems

Military and government designation and nomenclature treated as systems.

2 records. [1997, Appendix A Aircraft Nomenclature] [Designating and Naming Defense 1997]

The Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements programme

The programme the X-39 was reserved for.

1 record. [Cupstid 1997, Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements, Block I]

The one record is the Boeing Phase I report that the argument cites. NASA’s Technical Reports Server returns 33 records for the programme’s name and none of their titles names the programme, and the leading results of the same search of Crossref and of the Defense Technical Information Center reports that Crossref registers name it in no title either. The rest of what is known about the programme comes from the briefing and the trade report that the earlier sections cite.

Where the Framing Breaks Down

The series framing assumes that a number names a vehicle, and here that assumption fails completely. Every other article in the series begins from an aircraft and asks what it was built to measure. The X-39 offers no aircraft, so the framing’s research question, sizing and flight record are all empty, and the sections carrying those titles in this article say so and leave them empty.

The framing also invites the wrong reading of the gap. A register of experimental aircraft suggests that a missing number hides an aircraft. The record shows instead a reservation that was never followed by a request and never cancelled [Missing USAF and DOD Aircraft Designations], so the gap is part of the history of correspondence and not of flight.

The replacement framing that this article offers has a weak joint, and the joint is named here. The permanence argument depends on a rule that a release stops helping once the sequence has passed the number, and that rule is drawn from Parsch’s description of practice rather than from any regulation [Allocation of Official Aerospace Vehicle MDS Designations]. Epistemic State labels it as assumed.

The designation string does not stay inside one register. The same X-39 names a nuclear turbojet that ran on a ground stand [General Electric J47], so any framing that treats a designation as a unique name for one thing breaks at this number.

The Source Base

The eighteen sources that carry the argument and the 768 research records that map the field are different things, although two belong to both.

The evidentiary base is small because the subject is. Eighteen entries carry the argument, being two designation surveys, three versions of the joint instruction, two Department-level issuances, four parts of the Lockheed Martin Phase I briefing, two parts of the Boeing Phase I briefing, the Boeing technical report, one trade report of the cancellation, one account of the X-40 allocation and two of the nuclear turbojet. Twelve of those eighteen are primary documents, which is an unusually high share and a consequence of the subject being administrative. The governing instructions are not commentary on the evidence. They are the evidence.

The research survey holds 768 records, drawn from the scholarly registry Crossref, which also registers Department of Energy and Defense Technical Information Center reports, and from NASA’s Technical Reports Server, together with one report at the Defense Technical Information Center’s own address and one museum article. Of them, 34 are report primaries, being 4.4 percent, by the rule set out under The Definition of Primary. The median publication year is 2015. No paper in the survey has been read beyond its title, and apart from the Boeing report and the museum article, which the argument cites, no survey record is cited in support of any claim about the X-39. The article would say exactly the same things if the rest of the survey were deleted.

The Definition of Primary

Primacy is a property of the document, and this survey derives it from the identifier. A record is a report primary when it is a NASA Technical Reports Server record, a Defense Technical Information Center report at that centre’s own address or under the 10.21236 prefix that Crossref registers for it, or a Department of Energy report under the 10.2172 prefix that Crossref registers for the Office of Scientific and Technical Information. By that rule 30 primaries are Department of Energy reports, two are NASA reports and two are Defense Technical Information Center reports, and every one of them belongs to the clusters on military designation and nomenclature systems, nuclear propulsion of aircraft and the Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements programme. The rule does not reach the instructions, the briefings or the designation surveys, which are curated references rather than research records, so 4.4 percent describes the survey and not the argument, twelve of whose eighteen sources are primary.

Thin Subjects

Six subjects that this article’s derivations depend on have thin literatures. Each count below is the number of research records in this survey whose title carries at least one of the listed terms, with a hyphen read as a space. Where a row joins two groups of terms with the word together, a title must carry a term from each group.

Subject	Title terms counted	Records
designation systems for military and aerospace vehicles	designation, designations, designator, designators, designating, nomenclature together with military, aircraft, aerospace, electronic equipment, electronics type, band	2
reserving a number or identifier before it is assigned	reserve, reserved, reservation, reserving together with number, numbers, identifier, identifiers, address, addresses, designation, domain name, domain names	0
releasing, reclaiming or reusing a number or identifier	reuse, reused, reclaim, reclamation, recycle, recycled, recycling, reassign, reassigned, re-registration, release together with number, numbers, identifier, identifiers, address, addresses, domain name, domain names	3
retiring or withdrawing an entry from a register	deprecation, deprecated, withdrawal, withdrawn, retire, retired, retirement, obsolete	0
the X-39 engine and the Heat Transfer Reactor Experiments	X-39, X39, Heat Transfer Reactor, HTRE	0
the Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements programme	Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements, Fixed Wing Vehicle	1

Designation as a system has two records, on aircraft nomenclature and the 1997 issuance on designating and naming military aerospace vehicles. Neither concerns the gaps in a designation series.

No title names the reservation of a number or identifier before it is assigned. The reservations that Crossref does hold under that vocabulary are Internet standards documents that reserve blocks of addresses, which the survey excludes as standards documents rather than works about reservation, so the act that consumed the X-39 has no literature here under its own name.

Of the three titles that name reuse, reclamation or re-registration together with an identifier, a number or a domain name, two concern reusing the identifier itself, one in a single system and one in the market for expired domain names. The third concerns the reuse of data.

No title names deprecating, withdrawing or retiring an entry from a register, although that is the operation whose absence made the X-39 permanent.

No title names the X-39 engines or the Heat Transfer Reactor Experiments, although the survey holds the programme’s own reports, as the cluster on nuclear propulsion of aircraft records.

The programme the number was reserved for has one record, the Boeing Phase I report that the argument cites.

What the Survey Admits

A record is admitted only when a person reading its title finds it on this article’s subject, which is how an official record or register is made, kept, gapped, reused, retired or released, and how an absence in a record is reasoned from, together with the two programmes that the number and its string belonged to. A shared word is not enough, and neither is the use of a technique in a distant field.

Excluded on that ground are many records that share this subject’s words. They include archival storage media, engineering infrastructure and its technical standards, category theory in mathematics, machine-learning classification, boundary objects in organisational coordination, the nomenclature and designation systems of alloys, teeth, fasteners and other objects, identifiers in source code, network engineering and security of the Domain Name System, trademark disputes over domain names and the procedures that settle them, protocol engineering of the transition between the two versions of the Internet Protocol, algorithmic assignment of cell identifiers and spectrum inside a network, the allocation, licensing and auction of radio spectrum, which is a physical resource and not a register of names or numbers, routing engineering of address allocation, market studies of number portability whose subject is competition, the curation of biological databases, clinical, laboratory and manufacturing documentation, clinical questions about the records that patients hold, the application of a classification scheme to the documents or resources of one subject, records used only as a data source, and studies of artworks, novels, films and performances that take the archive as their theme. Applications of the maxim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence to one drug, disease, species or site are excluded as well, because their subject is the finding and not the inference. So are naval reactors, nuclear rockets and other nuclear subjects outside aircraft propulsion. Reviews of a single book, announcements, event notices, news items, columns, editorials, appendices of rules, dictionary, glossary and handbook reference entries, standards documents, and a second deposit or edition of the same document are excluded because they are not research works. A signed comment, discussion, reply or letter on a work within this subject is admitted, because it argues about a result, while an unsigned item of that kind and a referee’s report on a manuscript are not.

Some records of doubtful relevance are kept by judgement. They are chiefly historical and critical studies whose titles name the colonial archive without naming a silence, regulatory studies of number portability in a named country, and adoption studies of researcher identifiers. Each treats the making of a record, a number held under a rule or the take-up of an identifier, and a reader may weigh it accordingly.

No cluster is a residual. The largest, on recordkeeping, retention and provenance, holds 28.6 percent of the survey and is a named literature. A record that answers two clusters is counted once, so the cluster sizes are a partition of the survey and not a measure of how much literature addresses each theme.

Every research title has been read for relevance, so the off-topic share that remains is a matter of reading judgement. A title can mislead, and no paper has been read beyond its title, so the article claims a clean corpus nowhere.

Epistemic State

Historical Fact

The X-39 designation was reserved on 23 April 1997 for the Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements programme of the Air Force Research Laboratory, and no formal written request to allocate it was ever submitted, so it remained officially unassigned [Missing USAF and DOD Aircraft Designations]. FATE was a subset of the national Fixed Wing Vehicle programme, sponsored by Wright Laboratory at Dayton, Ohio, and structured in three phases of which only the first was executed. Lockheed Martin performed a Phase I study from June to October 1997 under contract F33615-97-C-3804 [Lockheed Martin FATE briefing], and Boeing Phantom Works performed a parallel Phase I study from 30 June to 30 October 1997 [Boeing FATE Block 1 Phase 1 briefing], reported in November 1997 [Cupstid 1997]. The Air Force subsequently cut the Fixed Wing Vehicle demonstrator, and the Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicle Advanced Technology Demonstration replaced the FATE activity [US Air Force cuts fixed wing FATE demonstrator plans] [Boeing FATE briefing, transition to UCAV-ATD]. The X-40A designation was allocated in 1997 [Boeing X-37 and X-40]. Air Force Joint Instruction 16-401 of 9 September 1994 required a written request for assignment and directed that designators not be used before approval [Air Force Joint Instruction 16-401].

Separately and unrelatedly, General Electric applied the designation X-39 to modified J47 turbojets adapted to run on reactor heat under the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion programme. Those engines were operated on a ground test stand with the Heat Transfer Reactor Experiments one, two and three, and were intended for the Convair X-6 [General Electric J47]. This is an engine designation and has no connection to the aircraft designation beyond the shared string.

Verified Against the Primary List

The absence of the X-39 from the approved-designator list was verified against the document. The 12 May 2004 edition of DoD 4120.15-L was retrieved and read, and its aircraft appendix carries X-35A, X-36A, X-37A, X-38A, X-40A and X-40B with no X-39 entry anywhere in the document [DoD 4120.15-L].

The check is corroboration, and the article does not present it as demonstration. X-33 and X-34 are also absent from the same edition, and both were real programmes cancelled in March 2001 [Jenkins, Landis and Miller, American X-Vehicles], so absence from a 2004 list is consistent with several histories including retirement after cancellation. The list shows that the X-39 is not among the approved designators of record. It cannot by itself show that it never was.

Analysis

The formal treatment of the numbering restates the sources and adds no new fact. The set definitions, the next-issue rule and the recovery condition encode what the joint instruction and Parsch’s account of the practice already say in prose. Their value is that an ordering argument becomes checkable, and the conclusion for the X-39 follows from a cancellation time of infinity without needing any date at all.

One step in that treatment is assumed and is labelled as assumed in the text. Taken literally, the minimum of the available set would fall again whenever a lower number was released, and the C-16 case shows that a release can recover a number. The rule that a release stops helping once the sequence has passed the number is empirical, drawn from Parsch’s description of the practice, and the permanence argument leans on this step hardest. No regulation quoted here states it.

Inference

That the X-39 request was never submitted because the demonstrator was cancelled is an inference, not a statement any source makes directly. The sources establish that the reservation was for the FATE programme, that a research designation attaches to a vehicle, that the vehicle was FATE II’s product, that FATE II was cut, and that no request followed. The causal link between the last two is the natural reading, but no document records it. An alternative reading, that the request was forgotten while the programme was still alive, is not excluded by anything found here.

Whether the reuse window had closed before the cancellation is not settled by the dated facts, which are the allocation of X-40A during 1997 and a cut that fell between 30 October and 17 December 1997. Either answer depends on the reuse rule as Parsch states it, a description of practice for which no regulatory text has been found.

What the Record Does Not Settle

No source accessible here gives the month of the X-40A allocation, so the relative order of the X-39 reservation and the X-40 allocation within 1997 remains open, and no claim about displacement is made.

The exact date of the FATE demonstrator cancellation is not established here, but it is bounded. The Phase I studies ran to 30 October 1997 and their results fed the successor programme, so the cut came after that date, and Flight International reported on 17 December 1997 that the Air Force had scrapped the demonstrator [US Air Force cuts fixed wing FATE demonstrator plans]. The Federation of American Scientists page agrees [X-39, Federation of American Scientists]. It is marked as updated on 24 December 1998, although its text speaks of early 1999, and it describes the three phases while stating that Phase I was used to start the Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicle Advanced Technology Demonstration, which will replace the FATE activity. The NASA inventory of X-vehicles of 2003 describes the rest of FATE as seemingly cancelled before being started [Jenkins, Landis and Miller, American X-Vehicles].

A finer date would need a document that is not available here. A research and development budget justification would show the programme element and the year its funding stopped, and none has been found for this programme. The cut is bounded to seven weeks, and the month of the X-40A allocation is the missing fact that would order it against the passage of 39.

Who reserved the number is unknown. The sources name the programme and the laboratory, not an office or an individual, and the instruction’s routing implies a system programme office that no accessible source identifies.

Whether the reservation was ever formally released is not established. The absence of a cancellation is inferred from the number remaining unallocated and from Parsch listing X-39 among the reservations that produced permanent gaps, rather than from any document recording that no cancellation was filed.

The current instruction has not codified reservation, and that question is settled. The 1994, 2005 and 2020 versions of the joint instruction were all read directly, the 2020 text from a copy held on the designation survey site.

The nuclear turbojet is now sourced to a museum account as well as an encyclopaedia, and neither is primary. The Smithsonian article supplies the 1956 ground-test date and the intended installation on the X-6. No separate encyclopaedia article exists for the engine, and the account there sits within the article on the J47 from which it was derived. The two disagree on how many J47 units constituted one X-39, so no count is asserted. The reactor pairings should be treated as secondary reporting, and the engine is used here only to establish that the designation string was applied to hardware in a different series, which both sources support. The survey holds the General Electric programme’s own comprehensive technical reports, read by title only, and no title among them names the X-39 engines or the Heat Transfer Reactor Experiments.

One source conflict is recorded and left unresolved. The encyclopaedia article on FATE describes the programme as run by the Air Force Research Laboratory and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency jointly [Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements], while the contemporaneous sources here describe FATE as an Air Force programme whose demonstrator was cut because it would have duplicated a separate agency project. The second reading is better supported, but the conflict is left standing.

Out of Scope

A survey of the aerospace literature is omitted, because it would measure nothing relevant to whether a letter was written in 1997. The article’s subject is not an aircraft. It is what a gap in an official register means, and a large current literature addresses that question, so that literature is surveyed and the aerospace field is not.

The survey is therefore chiefly of archival science, classification, identifier and number-space administration and the logic of inference from absence, with two small clusters on the programmes that the number and its string belonged to. Apart from the Boeing Phase I report and the museum account of the nuclear turbojet, which the argument cites, no survey record is cited in support of any claim about the X-39.

There is no physical mathematics here, and the little that appears is not decoration. Engineering analysis of an aircraft derives a keystone relationship and dimensions dependent systems against it. A designation has no mass and no area, so there is nothing to size. There is nonetheless a binding constraint, since the numbering is a finite resource issued consecutively and never replenished, and the case for permanence depends on that mechanism. The eight relations above state that mechanism and nothing else. None of them is a physical law and none of them is dimensional, and they earn their place only by making an ordering argument checkable that prose states loosely.

The evidentiary base is small and is not padded, and the reference list is large for a different reason. Eighteen of the entries below carry the argument. They are the two designation surveys, the three versions of the joint instruction, the two Department-level issuances, the four parts of the Lockheed Martin briefing, the two parts of the Boeing briefing, the Boeing technical report, the trade report of the cancellation, the account of the X-40 allocation, and the two accounts of the nuclear turbojet. A further seventeen name, define or give context rather than bear the argument’s weight. Apart from the related posts in this series, everything beyond those thirty-five is the reference survey, which also holds the two research records among the eighteen, and which is otherwise a map of the surrounding field and not evidence, as the Source Base section above sets out.

Twelve of those eighteen are primary documents, being the three instructions, the two Department-level issuances, the six briefing parts and the technical report. That share is higher than a subject this thin would normally support, and the administrative nature of the subject explains it. The governing documents are the evidence here, rather than commentary on the evidence.

Conclusion

The X-39 is a gap in a public register that records nothing about aviation and something precise about administration. A number was informally set aside on 23 April 1997 for a demonstrator that a study beginning about ten weeks later was supposed to justify. The study finished, the demonstrator was cut in favour of work already being done elsewhere, and the written request that would have made the designation real was never written. The number was never refused, because it was never requested.

What made the gap permanent was a second absence rather than the first. Recovering a reserved number requires the original requester to cancel the reservation before the next number is allocated, and the next number was allocated in the same year the reservation was made, without any cancellation. The X-39 was never released, so it was never recovered.

The system that lost it had written down a procedure for reserving names and none for reserving numbers. The reservation happened anyway, through a channel with no rule attached, which meant there was no rule for releasing it either. A register maintained this way is a record of correspondence, and reading it as a record of aircraft, which is what a gap invites, gets the artefact wrong.

The sharpest evidence for that is a coincidence of naming. An X-39 does exist and did run. It denotes the nuclear-heated J47 turbojets built for the X-6 under a different designation series entirely. One register holds a number with no hardware and the other holds hardware under the same number, and nothing connects them except the string.

The next article returns to a vehicle that was built and flown.

Equations

This section collects the 8 display equations of the article in the order they appear, each under its number and reproduced exactly as it stands in the text. A title in bold names an established result, and a title in italics beginning with the word Bespoke names a construction made for this analysis. Of the 8, 0 are established and 8 are bespoke. The relations carry no physical units, every quantity being either a set of design numbers within one basic mission or a calendar time, and the rule that the sequence never returns to a number it has passed is an empirical description of the designating office that the formal definition does not entail.

Equation 1, Bespoke Set of Unavailable Design Numbers. The article formalises the register by taking the unavailable numbers at a time as the union of those already allocated and those reserved but not yet allocated.

\[U(t) = A(t) \cup R(t) \tag{1}\]

Equation 2, Bespoke Next Design Number to Be Issued. The instruction to issue the next available consecutive number is written as the smallest natural number outside the unavailable set. Air Force Joint Instruction 16-401, 2005

\[m(t) = \min \left\{ n \in \mathbb{N} : n \notin U(t) \right\} \tag{2}\]

Equation 3, Bespoke Time at Which the Sequence Passes a Number. The passage time of a design number is defined as the first time the next issue exceeds it, a construction that relies on the documented practice that the sequence does not return to a number it has passed. Allocation of Official Aerospace Vehicle MDS Designations

\[\tau_r = \inf \left\{ t : m(t) > r \right\} \tag{3}\]

Equation 4, Bespoke Recovery Condition for a Reserved Number. A reserved number is recoverable exactly when its original requester cancels the reservation before the sequence passes it, which restates the published allocation rule in one line. Allocation of Official Aerospace Vehicle MDS Designations

\[\operatorname{recoverable}(r) \iff t_c(r) < \tau_r \tag{4}\]

Equation 5, Bespoke Monotonic Growth of the Reserved Set. Because the instruction prescribes no procedure for removing a reservation, the article takes the reserved set to only grow in the absence of an informal cancellation.

\[R(t_1) \subseteq R(t_2) \quad \text{whenever} \quad t_1 \leq t_2 \tag{5}\]

Equation 6, Bespoke Set of Permanent Gaps. The permanent gaps are defined as the reserved numbers below the next issue, a set that inherits the monotonic growth of the reserved set.

\[G(t) = \left\{ n \in R(t) : n < m(t) \right\} \tag{6}\]

Equation 7, Bespoke Instantiation for the X-39. With no cancellation ever filed the cancellation time of number 39 is infinite, so the recovery condition fails against any finite passage time.

\[t_c(39) = \infty \quad \implies \quad \operatorname{recoverable}(39) = \text{false} \tag{7}\]

Equation 8, Bespoke Dated Bounds on the Passage and the Cut. The record places the passage of number 39 no later than the end of 1997 and the cut of the programme between 30 October and 17 December 1997, bounds that overlap without ordering the two events.

\[\tau_{39} \leq \text{31 December 1997}, \qquad \text{30 October 1997} < t_{\text{cut}} \leq \text{17 December 1997} \tag{8}\]

Notation

$U(t)$, the set of design numbers unavailable at time $t$
$A(t)$, the set of design numbers already allocated within a basic mission
$R(t)$, the set of design numbers reserved but not yet allocated
$m(t)$, the design number the authority would issue next
$\tau_r$, the time at which the sequence passes design number $r$
$t_c(r)$, the time at which a reservation of $r$ is cancelled, taken as infinite when no cancellation is filed
$G(t)$, the set of permanent gaps
$t_{\text{cut}}$, the time at which the programme was cut

References

Primary Sources, Peer-Reviewed

Abuzawayda, Yousef I., Zawiyah M. Yusof, and Moh Juzaiddin A. Aziz. 2012. “Significance of Automated Records Retention Schedule among Universities in Malaysia.” In Seventh International Conference on Digital Information Management (ICDIM 2012). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icdim.2012.6360143
Achim, Miruna. 2023. “Other Pasts Are Possible: Reflections on the Colonial Archive.” Colonial Latin American Review 32 (2): 271–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/10609164.2023.2205257
Alexander, Ben. 2005. “Excluding Archival Silences: Oral History and Historical Absence.” Archival Science 5 (2–4): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02660803
Altman, Dg, and Jm Bland. 1996. “Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence.” Australian Veterinary Journal 74 (4): 311–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1996.tb13786.x
Anderson, Bethany G. 2024. “Kindred Contexts: Archives, Archaeology, and the Concept of Provenance.” Archival Science 24 (4): 761–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-024-09459-5
Anderson, Bethany, Fynnette Eaton, and Scott W. Schwartz. 2015. “Archival Appraisal and the Digital Record: Applying past Tradition for Future Practice.” New Review of Information Networking 20 (1–2): 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614576.2015.1114823
Araluen Corr, Evelyn. 2018. “Silence and Resistance: Aboriginal Women Working within and against the Archive.” Continuum 32 (4): 487–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2018.1480459
Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao, Benjamín Vargas-Quesada, Teresa Muñoz-Écija, and Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez. 2025. “Exploring ORCID Adoption and Metadata Presence in Spain’s Research Landscape.” Scientometrics 131 (2): 805–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05248-8
Ataullah, Ahmed A., and Frank Wm. Tompa. 2009. “Records Retention in Relational Database Systems: Bridging the Gap between Laws and Enforcement Actions.” In 2009 Second International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/relaw.2009.11
Bangert, Daniel, and Maude Frances. 2017. “PIDs to Support Discovery and Citation: Persistent Identifier Service Design and Delivery at UNSW Library.” In 2017 ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/jcdl.2017.7991610
Bantin, Philip C., and Gerald Bernbom. 1996. “The Indiana University Electronic Records Project: Analyzing Functions, Identifying Transactions, and Evaluating Recordkeeping Systems-a Report on Methodology.” Archives and Museum Informatics 10 (3): 246–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02802370
Bastian, Jeannette Allis. 2006. “Reading Colonial Records through an Archival Lens: The Provenance of Place, Space and Creation.” Archival Science 6 (3–4): 267–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-006-9019-1
Basu, Paul. 2025. “Voicing Silences in the Colonial Photographic Archive.” Visual Anthropology Review 41 (1): e70007. https://doi.org/10.1111/var.70007
Batra, Ramesh K., and Susan Rubman. 2019. “Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence.” American Journal of Bioethics 19 (11): 29–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1665738
Beeharry, Jailendrasingh, and Bhissum Nowbutsing. 2016. “Forecasting IPv4 Exhaustion and IPv6 Migration.” In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Innovative Business Practices for the Transformation of Societies (EmergiTech). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/emergitech.2016.7737362
Bhatia, Sharmila, and A. D. Wright de Hernandez. 2019. “Blockchain Is Already Here. What Does That Mean for Records Management and Archives?” Journal of Archival Organization 16 (1): 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332748.2019.1655614
Bhowmik, Moushumi. 2021. “Incomplete Listening, Unfinished Writing: Sound and Silence in Archival Recordings from the Early Twentieth Century.” South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 44 (5): 1000–1015. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2021.1970307
Black, Shelly. 2019. “The Implications of Digital Collection Takedown Requests on Archival Appraisal.” Archival Science 20 (1): 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-019-09322-y
Boiteau, Jesse. 2024. “Whose Provenance? Plurality of Provenance and the Redistribution of Archival Authority.” Archival Science 24 (4): 717–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-024-09453-x
Bordons, María, Luz Moreno-Solano, and Borja González-Albo. 2024. “ORCID Identifier Adoption in Spanish Scholarly Communication: A Macro and Micro Level Perspective.” Learned Publishing 37 (3): e1606. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1606
Boucadair, M., J-L. Grimault, P. Lévis, A. Villefranque, and P. Morand. 2009. “Anticipate IPv4 Address Exhaustion: A Critical Challenge for Internet Survival.” In 2009 First International Conference on Evolving Internet. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/internet.2009.11
Bridger, Emily, and Erin Hazan. 2022. “Surfeit and Silence: Sexual Violence in the Apartheid Archive.” African Studies 81 (3–4): 286–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/00020184.2023.2212606
Bruns, Ellery. 2024. “Archival Silences and Avenues to Address Them: A Literature Review.” Serials Librarian 85 (1–4): 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526x.2024.2318228
Buckley, Liam. 2005. “Objects of Love and Decay: Colonial Photographs in a Postcolonial Archive.” Cultural Anthropology 20 (2): 249–70. https://doi.org/10.1525/can.2005.20.2.249
Buehler, Stefan, Ralf Dewenter, and Justus Haucap. 2006. “Mobile Number Portability in Europe.” Telecommunications Policy 30 (7): 385–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2006.04.001
Buehler, Stefan, and Justus Haucap. 2004. “Mobile Number Portability.” Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 4 (3): 223–38. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jict.0000047299.13443.5a
Burke, Edmund. 2007. “The Creation of the Moroccan Colonial Archive, 1880–1930.” History and Anthropology 18 (1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/02757200600976127
Butler, Beverley. 2009. “‘Othering’ the Archive—from Exile to Inclusion and Heritage Dignity: The Case of Palestinian Archival Memory.” Archival Science 9 (1–2): 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-009-9095-0
Carter-Templeton, Heather, Jordan Wrigley, Jacqueline K. Owens, and Marilyn H. Oermann. 2021. “Digital Object Identifier: The DOI.” Nurse Author & Editor 31 (3–4): 58–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/nae2.25
Ceravolo, Paolo, and Emanuele Bellini. 2010. “EPICA: Easy Persistent Identifier Common Architecture.” In On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2010 Workshops. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16961-8_87
“Chapter 5 Issues of Name Authority Control in the Cataloging of Theses and Dissertations.” 2008. Technical Services Quarterly 25 (sup1): 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317130802127900
Chávez-Aragón, Alberto, José Federico Ramirez Cruz, Orion F. Reyes-Galaviz, Huberto Ayanegui-Santiago, and Alberto Portilla. 2009. “An Algorithm to Tackle the Name Authority Control Problem Using Semantic Information.” In 2009 Mexican International Conference on Computer Science. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/enc.2009.38
“Classification System: Old and New Categories.” 1992. Economics Letters 38 (1): 113–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1765(92)90169-y
Conor, Liz, and Jane Lydon. 2011. “Double Take: Reappraising the Colonial Archive.” Journal of Australian Studies 35 (2): 137–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/14443058.2011.562229
Cook, Terry. 2011. “‘We Are What We Keep; We Keep What We Are’: Archival Appraisal past, Present and Future.” Journal of the Society of Archivists 32 (2): 173–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00379816.2011.619688
Coombes, Annie E. 2016. “Photography against the Grain: Rethinking the Colonial Archive in Kenyan Museums.” World Art 6 (1): 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/21500894.2015.1126853
Courtney, Anne. 2022. “Recordkeeping in Freestanding Amateur Organisations: A Case Study of a Choir.” Archives and Records 43 (3): 267–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/23257962.2021.2007366
Cox, Richard J. 2002. “The End of Collecting: Towards a New Purpose for Archival Appraisal.” Archival Science 2 (3–4): 287–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02435626
Cox, Richard. 2006. “Empty Temples: Challenges for Modern Government Archives and Records Management.” Records & Information Management Report 22 (8): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.2753/rim1096-9624220800
Craigle, Valeri, Aaron Retteen, and Benjamin J. Keele. 2022. “Ending Law Review Link Rot: A Plea for Adopting DOI.” Legal Reference Services Quarterly 41 (2): 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/0270319x.2022.2089810
Cunningham, Adrian. 2008. “Harnessing the Power of Provenance in Archival Description: An Australian Perspective on the Development of the Second Edition ofISAAR(CPF).” Journal of Archival Organization 5 (1–2): 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1300/j201v05n01_02
De Zwart, Frank. 2005. “The Dilemma of Recognition: Administrative Categories and Cultural Diversity.” Theory and Society 34 (2): 137–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-005-6234-3
Dearstyne, Bruce W. 2006b. “Order in the Court? Records Management and Electronic Data Discovery.” Records & Information Management Report 22 (6): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2753/rim1096-9624220600
Decker, Stephanie. 2013. “The Silence of the Archives: Business History, Post-Colonialism and Archival Ethnography.” Management & Organizational History 8 (2): 155–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449359.2012.761491
Delaisse, Anne-Cécile, Tamsin Barber, Gaoheng Zhang, and Suzanne Huot. 2025. “Constructing Categories of ‘Desirable Migrants’ through Bureaucracy in French and Canadian Mobility Regimes.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 51 (17): 4502–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2025.2501716
Diaz-Valenzuela, Irene, Maria J. Martin-Bautista, and M. Amparo Vila. 2010. “An Automatic Data Mining Authority Control System: A First Approach.” In 2010 10th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/isda.2010.5687205
Dolganov, Anna. 2025. “Archives and Imperial Power: Archival Destruction in the Roman Context.” Archival Science 25 (3): 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-025-09492-y
Dragojlovic, Ana. 2018. “Politics of Negative Affect: Intergenerational Hauntings, Counter-Archival Practices and the Queer Memory Project.” Subjectivity 11 (2): 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41286-018-0046-1
Drewry, Elizabeth B. 1955. “Records Disposition in the Federal Government.” Public Administration Review 15 (3): 218. https://doi.org/10.2307/973020
Dvořák, Jan, Tomáš Chudlarský, and Josef Špaček. 2024. “ORCID Adoption Monitoring through a National and an Institutional CRIS.” Procedia Computer Science 249: 286–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2024.11.074
Emanuel, Michelle. 2011. “A Fistful of Headings: Name Authority Control for Video Recordings.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 49 (6): 484–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2011.603123
Falzetti, Ashley Glassburn. 2014. “Archival Absence: The Burden of History.” Settler Colonial Studies 5 (2): 128–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473x.2014.957258
Fina, Matteo, and Charles Hofacker. 2026. “Bayesian Inference and the Difference between Evidence of Absence and Absence of Evidence.” Journal of Marketing Analytics. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-026-00514-x
Francis, Lucy. 2013. “More than Just a Number: The ORCID Unique Identifier for Academics and Their Research Activities.” Editors’ Bulletin 9 (2): 42–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521742.2013.870719
Freire, Nuno, Hugo Manguinhas, Antoine Isaac, and Valentine Charles. 2023. “Persistent Identifier Usage by Cultural Heritage Institutions: A Study on the Europeana.eu Dataset.” In Linking Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries. Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43849-3_31
Gans, Joshua S., Stephen P. King, and Graeme Woodbridge. 2001. “Numbers to the People: Regulation, Ownership and Local Number Portability.” Information Economics and Policy 13 (2): 167–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-6245(00)00039-1
Garvey, Brian. 2010. “Absence of Evidence, Evidence of Absence, and the Atheist’s Teapot.” Ars Disputandi 10 (1): 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15665399.2010.10820011
Ghaddar, J. J. 2025. “Palestine as Provenance: Archiving against Genocide from Gaza to South Lebanon (Jabal Amil).” Archival Science 25 (3): 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-025-09484-y
Goddard, Ian Williams. 2019. “The LNT Risk Model for Ionizing Radiation Is Not an Argument from Ignorance.” Environmental Research 170: 82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.12.015
Golding, Frank. 2019. ““Problems with Records and Recordkeeping Practices Are Not Confined to the Past”: A Challenge from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.” Archival Science 20 (1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-019-09304-0
Goldstein, Eric L. 2005. “Contesting the Categories: Jews and Government Racial Classification in the United States.” Jewish History 19 (1): 79–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10835-005-4359-6
Gooda, Mick. 2011. “The Practical Power of Human Rights: How International Human Rights Standards Can Inform Archival and Record Keeping Practices.” Archival Science 12 (2): 141–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-011-9166-x
Grondona, Ana, Juan Ignacio Trovero, and Celeste Viedma. 2024. “Misplaced Archives, Statehood and Provenance out of Place: The Case of Two Personal Records from the Peripheries.” Archival Science 24 (4): 591–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-024-09458-6
Guberek, Tamy, and Margaret Hedstrom. 2017. “On or off the Record? Detecting Patterns of Silence about Death in Guatemala’s National Police Archive.” Archival Science 17 (1): 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-017-9274-3
Hager, Tamar. 2021. “Reconstructing Subjectivity from Silence: Julia Margaret Cameron, Mary Ryan and the Victorian Archive.” Women’s History Review 31 (5): 760–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/09612025.2021.1973651
Hagström Molin, Emma. 2025. “Exploring Archival Absence: Silences, Imagined Records and Materiality in Nineteenth-Century Europe.” Archival Science 25 (3): 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-025-09494-w
Han, Yingying, Ruohua Han, and Karen M. Wickett. 2024. “Tracing the Contours of Archival Silences: A Case Study of Critical Collection Building on the Rock Springs Massacre.” Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 61 (1): 928–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.1143
Harris, Verne. 2002b. “The Archival Sliver: Power, Memory, and Archives in South Africa.” Archival Science 2 (1–2): 63–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02435631
Hartstone-Rose, Adam. 2025. “Commentary: The Missing Sabertooth Baculum—at What Point Might the Absence of Evidence Reasonably Be Considered Evidence of Absence?” Anatomical Record 308 (11): 3053–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.25692
Henttonen, Pekka, and Saara Packalén. 2023. “Results of Archival Appraisal: A Study of a Finnish City.” Archival Science 24 (1): 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-023-09426-6
Heusse, Marie-Dominique, and Guillaume Cabanac. 2022. “ORCID Growth and Field-Wise Dynamics of Adoption: A Case Study of the Toulouse Scientific Area.” Learned Publishing 35 (4): 454–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1451
Hirsch, Rebecca. 2010. “The Permanence of Provenance: The “Two Traditions” and the American Archival Profession.” Journal of Archival Organization 8 (1): 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332748.2010.486754
Hisseine, Mahamat Ali, Deji Chen, Yang Xiao, and Philip Kofi Alimo. 2024. “A Review of Digital Object Architecture and Handle System: Development, Current Applications and Prospective.” Internet of Things 26: 101230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2024.101230
Hodder, Jake. 2017. “On Absence and Abundance: Biography as Method in Archival Research.” Area 49 (4): 452–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12329
Hodge, Shannon, Sarah Nantel, and Chris Trainor. 2022. “Remnants of Jenkinson: Observations on Settler Archival Theory in Canadian Archival Appraisal Discourse.” Archives and Records 43 (2): 147–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/23257962.2022.2037415
Hogue, Michel. 2020. “Still Hiding in Plain Sight?: Historiography and Métis Archival Memory.” History Compass 18 (7): e12618. https://doi.org/10.1111/hic3.12618
Hong, Yoojin, Byung-Won On, and Dongwon Lee. 2004. “System Support for Name Authority Control Problem in Digital Libraries: OpenDBLP Approach.” In Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30230-8_13
Hossain, Md Khalid, Viviane Frings-Hessami, Gillian Christina Oliver, Joy Bhowmik, and Jemima Jahan Meem. 2025. “Climate Change Impacts on the Recordkeeping Practices of Community Organizations in Bangladesh: Toward an Adaptive Recordkeeping Framework.” Archives and Records 47 (1): 113–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/23257962.2025.2571116
Hsu, Anne S., Andy Horng, Thomas L. Griffiths, and Nick Chater. 2016. “When Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence: Rational Inferences from Absent Data.” Cognitive Science 41 (S5): 1155–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12356
Hu, Chih-Nan, Shih-Hsiung Lee, and Chu-Sing Yang. 2017. “Numbering Plan for M2M and IoT Services — A Study of United States, Japan, China and Taiwan.” In 2017 International Conference on Information Society (i-Society). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.23919/i-society.2017.8354667
Hu, Lily, Owen Tam, and Patrick Lo. 2004. “Chinese Name Authority Control in Asia: An Overview.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 39 (1–2): 465–88. https://doi.org/10.1300/j104v39n01_14
Huang, Carolin. 2020. “Dwelling on the “Anarchival”: Archives as Indexes of Loss and Absence.” Archival Science 20 (3): 263–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-020-09333-0
Hurley, Chris, Sue McKemmish, Barbara Reed, and Narissa Timbery. 2024. “The Power of Provenance in the Records Continuum.” Archival Science 24 (4): 825–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-024-09463-9
Huvila, Isto. 2008. “Participatory Archive: Towards Decentralised Curation, Radical User Orientation, and Broader Contextualisation of Records Management.” Archival Science 8 (1): 15–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-008-9071-0
Hyman, Aaron M., and Barbara E. Mundy. 2023. “The Colonial Archive and Its Fictions.” Colonial Latin American Review 32 (3): 312–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10609164.2023.2246831
Karlander, David. 2017. “State Categories, State Vision and Vernacular Woes in Sweden’s Language Politics.” Language Policy 17 (3): 343–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-017-9439-1
Katuu, Shadrack. 2025. “Systems Thinking, Management Standards and the Quest for Records and Archives Management Relevance.” In 2025 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/bigdata66926.2025.11400791
Keevers, R. 1966. “Telephone Numbering Plans-Keeping Pace with Domestic and Global Service Needs.” IEEE Transactions on Communications 14 (6): 863–65. https://doi.org/10.1109/tcom.1966.1089389
Kim, Yunhyong, and Seamus Ross. 2013. “Closing the Loop: Assisting Archival Appraisal and Information Retrieval in One Sweep.” Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 50 (1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14505001042
Klein, Martin, and Lyudmila Balakireva. 2021. “An Extended Analysis of the Persistence of Persistent Identifiers of the Scholarly Web.” International Journal on Digital Libraries 23 (1): 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-021-00315-w
Klingbiel, D., B. Thürlimann, P. Brauchli, and R. von Moos. 2017. “Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence: The Case of Non-Inferiority.” Annals of Oncology 28 (12): 3100–3101. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx498
Koziura, Karolina. 2026. “Migrating Memory, Diasporic Counter Archives, and Transnational Reckoning with Repressed Past.” Archival Science 26 (2): 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-026-09537-w
Kretzschmar, Robert. 2005. “Archival Appraisal in Germany: A Decade of Theory, Strategies, and Practices.” Archival Science 5 (2–4): 219–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-005-9014-y
Kros, Cynthia. 2017. “Tribing and Untribing the Archive: Identity and the Material Record in Southern Kwa-Zulu Natal in the Late Independent and Colonial Periods.” South African Historical Journal 69 (4): 622–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/02582473.2017.1389978
Landman, Jane. 2009. “Visual Pedagogies of the Colonial Archive.” Postcolonial Studies 12 (3): 359–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790903127833
Lange, John. 1966. “The Argument from Silence.” History and Theory 5 (3): 288. https://doi.org/10.2307/2504447
Lee, Christopher J. 2012. “Gender without Groups: Confession, Resistance and Selfhood in the Colonial Archive.” Gender & History 24 (3): 701–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0424.2012.01711.x
Lemieux, Victoria L. 2017. “A Typology of Blockchain Recordkeeping Solutions and Some Reflections on Their Implications for the Future of Archival Preservation.” In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/bigdata.2017.8258180
Liao, Haoyang, Lin Xie, Fulong Zhao, et al. 2025. “Thermal Parameters, Size, Weight and Economic Evaluation of Various Nuclear-Powered Turbojet Engines.” Energy 320: 135152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2025.135152
Lips, Miriam, and Anita Rapson. 2010. “Exploring Public Recordkeeping Behaviors in Wiki-Supported Public Consultation Activities in the New Zealand Public Sector.” In 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2010.453
MacEwan, Andrew, Anila Angjeli, and Janifer Gatenby. 2013. “The International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI): The Evolving Future of Name Authority Control.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 51 (1–3): 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2012.730601
Mak, Lucas. 2011. “Issues of Personal Name Authority Control in a Retrospective Cataloging Project.” Technical Services Quarterly 28 (2): 160–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2011.546251
Marini, Francesca. 2024. “Provenance and Theatre Archives.” Archival Science 24 (4): 573–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-024-09450-0
Markwell, John, and David W. Brooks. 2003. ““Link Rot” Limits the Usefulness of Web-Based Educational Materials in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.” Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 31 (1): 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.2003.494031010165
Martin, Julia. 2015. “Recipes, Love, and Forgetting: A Sparse Domestic Archive from Colonial Natal.” Social Dynamics 41 (3): 576–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/02533952.2015.1099861
McGrew, Timothy. 2013. “The Argument from Silence.” Acta Analytica 29 (2): 215–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-013-0205-5
Mesicek, Martin. 2014. “On Absence of Evidence and Evidence of Absence.” Norwegian Archaeological Review 47 (2): 199–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2014.949839
Messmer, Gabriele. 2004. “The German Name Authority File (PND) in the Bavarian Union Catalogue: Principles, Experiences, and Costs.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 39 (1–2): 421–27. https://doi.org/10.1300/j104v39n01_10
Meyer, Renate. 2008. “What Lies Below: Exploring Constructions of Collective Memory in Archival Collections.” South African Historical Journal 60 (2): 209–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02582470802416443
Mitchell, J. H. 1966. “Retention of Medical Records.” Lancet 288 (7457): 285. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(66)92581-5
Moret, Camille. 2024. “Police Casework Recordkeeping in England and Wales: An Archival Denial of Evidence.” Archives and Records 45 (2): 176–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/23257962.2024.2370251
Moss, R. 1964. “Categories and Relations: Origins of Two Classification Theories.” American Documentation 15 (4): 296–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090150408
Mueller, Milton. 2010. “Critical Resource: An Institutional Economics of the Internet Addressing-Routing Space.” Telecommunications Policy 34 (8): 405–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2010.05.002
Muñiz, Wendy. 2021. “Critical Archival Theory and the Caribbean’s Neoliberal Archival Turn.” Archival Science 22 (2): 239–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-021-09377-w
Murugesan, Raja Kumar, and Sureswaran Ramadass. 2009. “The Country Internet Registry (CIR) Model: An Alternative Approach for the Allocation and Distribution of IPv6 Addresses.” In 2009 6th International Symposium on High Capacity Optical Networks and Enabling Technologies (HONET). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/honet.2009.5423069
Myers, O. 1961. “The New Nation-Wide Telephone Numbering Plan.” Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, Part I: Communication and Electronics 79 (6): 673–75. https://doi.org/10.1109/tce.1961.6373029
Neatrour, Anna, and Jeremy Myntti. 2019. “Western Name Authority File: A Pilot Regional Name Authority Project.” Journal of Library Metadata 19 (1–2): 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2019.1589685
Nesmith, Tom. 2007. “The Concept of Societal Provenance and Records of Nineteenth-Century Aboriginal–European Relations in Western Canada: Implications for Archival Theory and Practice.” Archival Science 6 (3–4): 351–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-007-9043-9
Ngoepe, Mpho. 2022. “Reflections on “Remnants of Jenkinson: Observations on Settler Archival Theory in Canadian Archival Appraisal Discourse”.” Archives and Records 43 (2): 164–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/23257962.2022.2040456
Ngulube, Patrick. 2001. “Archival Appraisal and the Future of Historical Research in Southern Africa.” South African Historical Journal 45 (1): 249–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/02582470108671410
Niang, Amy. 2026. “An Illegible Archive: Reading Omar Ibn Said against the Grain.” Slavery & Abolition 47 (2): 466–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144039x.2026.2660032
Nilsson, Elisabet M. 2016. “Prototyping Collaborative (Co-)Archiving Practices: From Archival Appraisal to Co-Archival Facilitation.” In 2016 22nd International Conference on Virtual System & Multimedia (VSMM). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/vsmm.2016.7863184
Niu, Jinfang. 2013. “Evolving Landscape in Name Authority Control.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 51 (4): 404–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2012.756843
Nunn, W. H. 1952a. “Nation-Wide Telephone Numbering Plan.” Electrical Engineering 71 (10): 884–88. https://doi.org/10.1109/ee.1952.6437727
Nunn, W. H. 1952b. “Nationwide Numbering Plan.” Bell System Technical Journal 31 (5): 851–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1952.tb01412.x
Oldfield, William R. 1988. “Cataloguing and Catalogue Maintenance:: Functional Cost Allocation System.” Technical Services Quarterly 5 (2): 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1300/j124v05n02_06
Osborn, Georgia, and Nathan Alan. 2023. “Web 3 Disruption and the Domain Name System: Understanding the Trends of Blockchain Domain Names and the Policy Implications.” Journal of Cyber Policy 8 (2): 142–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2023.2294759
Park, Sungbum, Hangjung Zo, Andrew P. Ciganek, and Gyoo Gun Lim. 2011. “Examining Success Factors in the Adoption of Digital Object Identifier Systems.” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 10 (6): 626–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2011.05.004
Parotte, Céline. 2021. “The Power and Limits of Classification: Radioactive Waste Categories as Reshaped by Disposal Options.” Nuclear Technology 207 (9): 1469–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2021.1888618
Percel, Joyce. 2024. “Hauntings of Absence and Erasure: Black Archival Practices of Property Data.” Antipode 56 (6): 2368–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.13067
Pérez-Yarza, Eduardo González. 2001. “El sistema DOI (Digital Object Identifier).” Anales de Pediatría 54 (4): 428–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1695-4033(01)77562-5
Porter, Stephen R., Paul D. Umbach, and Chris Willis. 2025. “Understanding ORCID Adoption among Academic Researchers.” Scientometrics 130 (5): 2783–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05300-7
Rajh, Arian. 2021. “Records Management and Archiving in the Pharmaceutical Industry and Regulatory Authorities.” Archives and Records 42 (1): 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/23257962.2021.1873119
Raman, Vignesh, and Oliver K. Jawitz. 2021. “Commentary: Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence.” Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 161 (1): 279–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.03.015
Rankine, Kazuko, Lorraine M. Nero, and Gerard H. Rogers. 2008. “Toward Name Authority Control in the English-Speaking Caribbean.” Technical Services Quarterly 25 (3): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317130802128551
Reuss, Annalena, Axel Braun, and Ramon Pfeiffer. 2023. “Trust Issues: Why We Should Handle ORCID Trust Markers with Care and How We Can Improve Their Trustworthiness through More Secure Workflows in ORCID Integrations.” In 2023 Third International Conference on Digital Data Processing (DDP). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ddp60485.2023.00021
Rhee, Hea Lim. 2012. “Genres and Genre Repertoires of User and Use Information Sources in U.S. State Archival and Records Management Appraisal Practice.” Archival Science 12 (4): 461–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-012-9176-3
Rhee, Hea Lim. 2014. “Archival Appraisal Practice in U.S. State Archives and Records Management Programs.” Archival Science 16 (2): 167–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-014-9237-x
Rhee, Hea Lim. 2016. “Utilizing User Studies in Archival Appraisal Practice: Feasibility, Value, and Benefits.” Archival Science 17 (2): 151–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-016-9270-z
Risher, Carol A., and William R. Rosenblatt. 1998. “The Digital Object Identifier—an Electronic Publishing Tool for the Entire Information Community.” Serials Review 24 (3–4): 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.1998.10764462
Rizal, Moch Fahru, and A. Ali Muayyadi. 2013. “Techno-Economic and Regulation Impact Analysis of Mobile Number Portability Implementation.” In 2013 International Conference of Information and Communication Technology (ICoICT). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icoict.2013.6574618
Rogers, Jessa. 2026. “Rematriating Wiradjuri Sovereignty in Research: Re-Visiting the Colonial Archive.” Australian Feminist Studies: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2026.2712254
Rolan, Gregory, and Antonina Lewis. 2024. “The Perpetual Twilight of Records: Consentful Recordkeeping as Moral Defence.” Archival Science 24 (2): 257–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-024-09438-w
Rosén, Frederik. 2008. “Off the Record: Outsourcing Security and State Building to Private Firms and the Question of Record Keeping, Archives, and Collective Memory.” Archival Science 8 (1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-008-9066-x
Saglam, Erol. 2024. “Paperwork as Statecraft: Documents, Politics, and Bureaucratic Agency in Street-Level Organisations.” Third World Quarterly 46 (2): 117–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2024.2387817
Salo, Dorothea. 2009. “Name Authority Control in Institutional Repositories.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 47 (3–4): 249–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639370902737232
Salvador, Paulo, and António Nogueira. 2011. “Analysis of the Internet Domain Names Re-Registration Market.” Procedia Computer Science 3: 325–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2010.12.056
Schwartz, Joan M., and Terry Cook. 2002. “Archives, Records, and Power: The Making of Modern Memory.” Archival Science 2 (1–2): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02435628
Shah, Eric D. 2023. “Is Evidence of Absence Considered Absence of Evidence? How Negative Studies Inform Shared Decision-Making.” Digestive Diseases and Sciences 68 (5): 1661–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-023-07878-5
Sizemore-Barber, April. 2017. “Archival Movements: South Africa’s Gay and Lesbian Memory in Action.” Safundi 18 (2): 117–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17533171.2016.1270568
Sober, Elliott. 2008. “Absence of Evidence and Evidence of Absence: Evidential Transitivity in Connection with Fossils, Fishing, Fine-Tuning, and Firing Squads.” Philosophical Studies 143 (1): 63–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-008-9315-0
Souchen, Alex. 2021. “Missing from the Record: Historians, Archival Research and Underwater Munitions.” Rethinking History 25 (3): 347–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2021.1988249
Star, Susan Leigh, and Geoffrey C. Bowker. 2007. “Enacting Silence: Residual Categories as a Challenge for Ethics, Information Systems, and Communication.” Ethics and Information Technology 9 (4): 273–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-007-9141-7
Sucha-xaya, Naya. 2024. “Finding Values, Building Communities: Development of an Archival Appraisal System for the Thai Public Sector.” Archival Science 24 (3): 329–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-024-09433-1
Sujarittanonta, Pacharasut. 2017. “Evaluating Mobile Number Portability Policy in the Thai Mobile Telecommunications Market.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 51 (2): 220–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11149-017-9326-x
Sutton, Halley. 2015. “Understand Best Practices for Records Retention under FERPA.” Successful Registrar 15 (10): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/tsr.30128
Syaffieq, Amin, Arif Bramantoro, Sy Mey Yeo, and Mohammad Saiful Omar. 2026. “Digital Transformation of Aviation Records: Implementing an Electronic Records Management System.” In 2026 International Conference on Enterprise and Industrial System (ICOEINS). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icoeins69996.2026.11605840
Szary, Richard V. 2006. “Encoded Archival Context (EAC) and Archival Description: Rationale and Background.” Journal of Archival Organization 3 (2–3): 217–27. https://doi.org/10.1300/j201v03n02_16
Taroni, F., S. Bozza, T. Hicks, and P. Garbolino. 2019. “More on the Question ‘When Does Absence of Evidence Constitute Evidence of Absence?’ How Bayesian Confirmation Theory Can Logically Support the Answer.” Forensic Science International 301: e59-e63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.05.044
Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A. 2024. “Discontinuity between Journals’ Registration and Submission Requirements for Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID).” Nurse Author & Editor 34 (2): e12061. https://doi.org/10.1111/nae2.12061
Tennis, Joseph T. 2015. “Archival Metadata for Digital Cultural Heritage Conceptual Provenance, Contextual Forensics, and the Authority of the Found Digital Object.” In 2015 Digital Heritage. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/digitalheritage.2015.7419533
Thelin, John R. 2009. “Archives and the Cure for Institutional Amnesia: College and University Saga as Part of the Campus Memory.” Journal of Archival Organization 7 (1–2): 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332740902897485
Thompson, William C., and Nicholas Scurich. 2018. “When Does Absence of Evidence Constitute Evidence of Absence?” Forensic Science International 291: e18-e19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.08.040
Thompson, William C., Nicholas Scurich, Rachel Dioso-Villa, and Brenda Velazquez. 2017. “Evaluating Negative Forensic Evidence: When Do Jurors Treat Absence of Evidence as Evidence of Absence?” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 14 (3): 569–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12156
Tough, Alistair G. 2011. “Oral Culture, Written Records and Understanding the Twentieth-Century Colonial Archive. the Significance of Understanding from Within.” Archival Science 12 (3): 245–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-011-9162-1
Trace, Ciaran B. 2002. “What Is Recorded Is Never Simply ‘What Happened’: Record Keeping in Modern Organizational Culture.” Archival Science 2 (1–2): 137–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02435634
Trace, Ciaran B. 2024. “The Archive as Home: Ruminations on Domestic Notions of Provenance.” Archival Science 24 (4): 559–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-024-09449-7
Usero Sánchez, Belén, and Grigorios Asimakopoulos. 2012. “Regulation and Competition in the European Mobile Communications Industry: An Examination of the Implementation of Mobile Number Portability.” Telecommunications Policy 36 (3): 187–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2011.12.008
Valerio, Miguel A. 2023. “Expanding the Colonial Archive.” Colonial Latin American Review 32 (2): 257–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10609164.2023.2205256
VanHaitsma, Pamela. 2020. “Between Archival Absence and Information Abundance: Reconstructing Sallie Holley’s Abolitionist Rhetoric through Digital Surrogates and Metadata.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 106 (1): 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2019.1706188
Vetters, Larissa. 2007. “The Power of Administrative Categories: Emerging Notions of Citizenship in the Divided City of Mostar1.” Ethnopolitics 6 (2): 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449050701345009
Vincent, Sharon, Martine Hawkes, Justine Ogle, Joanne Evans, and Barbara Reed. 2024. “From Passive Subjects to Active Agents: Enabling Child-Centred Recordkeeping in Social Care Contexts.” Archives and Records 45 (3): 238–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/23257962.2024.2378289
Vizcaya, Benita Sampedro. 2008. “Rethinking the Archive and the Colonial Library: Equatorial Guinea.” Journal of Spanish Cultural Studies 9 (3): 341–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636200802563600
Wang, Weilang, Lvxiang Deng, Bin You, Ping Zhang, and Yifeng Chen. 2017a. “Digital Object Identifier and Its Use in Core Chinese Academic Journals: A Chinese Perspective.” Learned Publishing 31 (2): 149–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1137
Wanhalla, Angela. 2024. “Indigenous Histories, Gender, and the Colonial Archive.” Safundi 25 (3): 100–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/17533171.2024.2346969
Williams, Robin. 2003. “Residual Categories and Disciplinary Knowledge: Personal Identity in Sociological and Forensic Investigations.” Symbolic Interaction 26 (4): 515–29. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2003.26.4.515
Wu, Irene. 2013. “Take Your Phone Number with You! Explaining the Diffusion of Number Portability Policy across Nations.” SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2228407
Yamada, Taizo, and Satoshi Inoue. 2021. “Personal Name Authority Data Repository for Advancement Data-Driven Research in Japanese History.” In 2021 Pacific Neighborhood Consortium Annual Conference and Joint Meetings (PNC). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.23919/pnc53575.2021.9672287
Yi-Binq Lin, I. Chlamtac, and Hsica-Cheng Yu. 2003. “Mobile Number Portability.” IEEE Network 17 (5): 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1109/mnet.2003.1233913
Yu, Qianqian, Jianyong Zhang, Li Qian, Zhipeng Dong, Yongwen Huang, and Jianhua Liu. 2019. “Practice of Constructing Name Authority Database Based on Multi-Source Data Integration.” In 2019 ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/jcdl.2019.00088
Yuan Shi, Boxuan Zhai, Xiang Zhou, and Zhiyong Peng. 2006. “Object Identifier Reuse Mechanism for TOTEM.” In 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW’06). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icdew.2006.101
Zhou, Hui. 2009. “The Timing of Introducing Mobile Number Portability.” In 2009 5th International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/wicom.2009.5304726
Zittrain, Jonathan, and Kendra Albert. 2013. “Perma: Scoping and Addressing the Problem of Link and Reference Rot in Legal Citations.” SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2329161
Zou, Qing, and Eun G. Park. 2024. “Archival Context, Provenance, and a Tool to Capture Archival Context.” Archival Science 24 (4): 801–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-024-09457-7

Primary Sources, Non-Peer-Reviewed

”,,,Administrative Records and the Courts.” 2018. Kansas Law Review. https://doi.org/10.17161/1808.27478
”- Critical Considerations for Records Management and Retention.” 2012. In A Guide to IT Contracting. Auerbach Publications. https://doi.org/10.1201/b13082-31
”- Data Management and Records Retention.” 2013. In Handbook of SCADA/Control Systems Security. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1201/b13869-25
“1 Colonial Listening and the Making of a Sound Archive.” 2022. In A Decolonizing Ear. University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781487546731-004
“11 Epilogue: The Colonial Gaze, History and the Archive.” 2015. In Lost Nationalism. Boydell and Brewer. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781782045281-018
“4 Archival Silence, Sexual Violence: Reading for Re/membrance.” 2025. In Archival Irruptions. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781478094364-008
“4. Collecting Colonial Postcards: Gender and the Visual Archive.” 2007. In India by Design. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520941052-007
“4. Silences (Take Two): Gendered Archival Lacunae.” 2024. In Reading the Archival Revolution. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503641037-008
Abdulrahim, Abdulfatah, and hauwa’u muhammad Zayyana. 2025. “Information Governance Retention and Disposition Principles for Records Management in the Registry of Federal University Gusau, Zamfara State.” FUGUS International Journal of Library and information Science. 2 (1): 141–52. https://doi.org/10.57233/fijlis.v2i1.14
Adelusi-Adeluyi, Ademide. 2020. ““Africa for the Africans?” – Mapmaking, Lagos, and the Colonial Archive.” History in Africa 47: 275–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/hia.2020.9
Adriansyah, Muhammad Farhan, Niko Grataridarga, and Dyah Safitri. 2024. “Creating the List of Proposed Records to Be Destroyed in Records Retention Activities at Perum Bulog.” International Journal of Cultural and Social Science. 5 (2): 61–66. https://doi.org/10.53806/ijcss.v5i2.880
Ahmed, Nuredin Ali Salem. 2026. “IPv4 Address Exhaustion: Mitigation Strategies, Architectural Trade-Offs, and IPv6 Transition Challenges.” AlQalam Journal of Medical and Applied Sciences. https://doi.org/10.54361/ajmas.269610
Akussah, Harry, and Catherine Asamoah. 2015. “Management of Public Sector Records in Ghana: A Descriptive Survey.” Records Management Journal 25 (2): 183–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-10-2014-0044
Al-Alawi, Sakena A. 2024. “Records Management Compliance: A Case Study of Kuwait’s College of Basic Education.” Records Management Journal 35 (1): 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-09-2023-0050
Al-Amoudi, Fahad, Kate Birch, and Simon P. Newman. 2022. “Runaways London: Historical Research, Archival Silences and Creative Voices.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 32: 223–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/s008044012200010x
Al-Samadi, Omar. 2025. “Decolonial Approaches to Archival Appraisal within the Context of Archival Apartheid in Occupied Palestine.” iJournal: Student Journal of the Faculty of Information 10 (2). https://doi.org/10.33137/ijournal.v10i2.45406
Alderson, Phil. 2004. “Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence.” BMJ 328 (7438): 476–77. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7438.476
“Alienated Memories: Migrants and the Silences of the Archive.” 2013. In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203552490-20
Allegrezza, Stefano. 2020. “The Impact of a Legal Framework for Cloud Computing on Electronic Recordkeeping and Digital Preservation.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003005117-6
Alpaten, Ulil Albab Al Aulia, and Risqi Khurdianto. 2026. “Governing Islamic Marriage Registration in Indonesia: State Legibility, Administrative Burden, and Legal Recognition.” Indonesian Journal of Sharia and Socio-Legal Studies 2 (1): 64–87. https://doi.org/10.66277/ijssls.2.1.214
Altman, Douglas G., and J. Martin Bland. 1995. “Statistics Notes: Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence.” BMJ 311 (7003): 485. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7003.485
An, Xiaomi. 2005. “Research in Electronic Records Management.” In Managing Electronic Records. Facet. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781856049160.006
An, Xiaomi, and Michael Cook. 2003. “Integrated Management and Services for Urban Development Records, Archives and Information: A Research Agenda.” Records Management Journal 13 (2): 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/09565690310485306
“Appendix A: Aircraft Nomenclature.” 1997. In An Introduction to Aircraft Performance. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/5.9781600861529.0297.0308
“Archival Absences, Silences and Fragments: The Unmade and Film History.” 2026. In Unmade Film and Television. Intellect. https://doi.org/10.1386/9781835952474_5
“Archival Appraisal and Acquisition.” 2009. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/e-elis3-120044327
“Archival Memory and the Destruction of the Past.” 2021. In Phantoms of Remembrance. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1mjqtsx.9
Arondekar, Anjali. 2005. “Without a Trace: Sexuality and the Colonial Archive.” Journal of the History of Sexuality 14 (1): 10–27. https://doi.org/10.1353/sex.2006.0001
Arunachalam, Subbiah, and Muthu Madhan. 2021. “Adopting ORCID as a Unique Identifier Will Benefit All Involved in Scholarly Communication.” National Medical Journal of India 0 (0): 0. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-258x.190480
Asamoah, Catherine, Harry Akussah, and Adams Musah. 2018. “Recordkeeping and Disaster Management in Public Sector Institutions in Ghana.” Records Management Journal 28 (3): 218–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-01-2018-0001
Ataullah, Ahmed A., Ashraf Aboulnaga, and Frank Wm. Tompa. 2008. “Records Retention in Relational Database Systems.” In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1458082.1458197
Auther, Elissa. 2002. “Classification and Its Consequences: The Case of ‘Fiber Art’.” American Art 16 (3): 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1086/444669
Author, Not Given. 1959. Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Project Semiannual Progress Report for Period Ending September 30, 1958. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/4581034
Author, Not Given. 1960. Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Project Semiannual Progress Report for Period Ending October 31, 1960. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/4596855
“Authority Control Experiences and Projects.” 2012. In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203051092-12
“Authority Control in the Context of Bibliographic Control in the Electronic Environment.” 2012a. In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203051092-7
“Authority Control of Creators and the Second Edition of ISAAR(CPF), International Standard Archival Authority Record for Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families.” 2012. In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203051092-10
“Authority Control: State of the Art and New Perspectives.” 2012b. In Authority Control in Organizing and Accessing Information. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203051092-8
Awojobi, Ea. 2011. “Digital Object Identifier (DOI) – a Must Know for Every Author of Scholarly Publications.” Journal of Agriculture Forestry and the Social Sciences 8 (2). https://doi.org/10.4314/joafss.v8i2.71647
Bachell, Alasdair, and Matthew Barr. 2014. “Video Game Preservation in the UK: A Survey of Records Management Practices.” International Journal of Digital Curation 9 (2): 139–70. https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v9i2.294
Bae, Sung Jung, Hyo-Jung Oh, Jun Kab Jang, and Yong Kim. 2016. “A Study on the Analysis and Current State of the Records Disposition Schedule in College of Education: Focused on J College of Education.” Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science 27 (1): 187–216. https://doi.org/10.14699/kbiblia.2016.27.1.187
Bahmer, Robert. 1943. “Scheduling the Disposition of Records.” American Archivist 6 (3): 169–75. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.6.3.e2457xl474772377
Bailey, Stephen. 1999. “The Metadatabase: The Future of the Retention Schedule as a Records Management Tool.” Records Management Journal 9 (1): 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000007242
Bailey, Steve. 2009. “Forget Electronic Records Management, It’s Automated Records Management That We Desperately Need.” Records Management Journal 19 (2): 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/09565690910972048
Baker, Heather d. 2003. “Record-Keeping Practices as Revealed by the Neo-Babylonian Private Archival Documents.” In Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions. Oxford University PressOxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199252459.003.0011
Barron, Pierre, Anne Bory, Sébastien Chauvin, Nicolas Jounin, and Lucie Tourette. 2016. “State Categories and Labour Protest: Migrant Workers and the Fight for Legal Status in France.” Work, Employment and Society 30 (4): 631–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017016631451
Barry, Richard E. 1997. “Electronic Records Management… the Way We Were … the Way We Are: One Man’s Opinion.” Records Management Journal 7 (3): 157–89. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb027110
Bassetti, Stefano. 2017. “«Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence» ….” Swiss Medical Forum ‒ Schweizerisches Medizin-Forum 17 (48). https://doi.org/10.4414/smf.2017.03109
Bastian, Jeannette A. 2020. “Radical Recordkeeping: How Community Archives Are Changing How We Think about Records.” In Libraries and Archives in the Digital Age. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33373-7_7
Bauer, Brad, and David Joseph Wrisley. 2020. “Digital Humanities Practices and Archival Appraisal in the Contemporary Arab World.” Égypte/Monde arabe 22: 71–83. https://doi.org/10.4000/ema.13166
Bayeck, Rebecca Yvonne, Giovanni Colavizza, Jenny Bunn, Mark Bell, and Souvick Ghosh. 2022. “Recommendations on Using Artificial Intelligence in Archival Appraisal and Selection.” Comma 2022 (1): 219–25. https://doi.org/10.3828/coma.2022.22
Beaubien, Denise, and Priscilla Head. 2011. “Name Authority Challenges for Indexing and Abstracting Databases.” In Cataloging and Indexing. Apple Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b13123-3
Bellini, Emanuele. 2019. “A Blockchain Based Trusted Persistent Identifier System for Big Data in Science.” Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences 44 (4): 351–77. https://doi.org/10.2478/fcds-2019-0018
Bellini, Emanuele, Giovanni Bergamin, Maurizio Messina, Chiara Cirinnà, and Raffaele Messuti. 2014. “NBN:IT the Italian Trusted Persistent Identifier Infrastructure.” International Journal of Knowledge and Learning 9 (4): 347. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijkl.2014.069536
Beneito Arias, Paloma. 2008. “Appraising the Value of Statistical Records of the European Central Bank for Retention Scheduling Purposes.” Records Management Journal 18 (3): 205–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/09565690810916456
Berber, Fatih, and Ramin Yahyapour. 2017. “DNS as Resolution Infrastructure for Persistent Identifiers.” In Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, vol. 11. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.15439/2017f114
Bezdrabko, Valentyna. 2019a. “About the Concept of the New Edition of the Terminological Standard of Record Keeping and Archive Affairs.” Scientific journal “Library Science. Record Studies. Informology” 0 (1): 63–72. https://doi.org/10.32461/2409-9805.1.2019.165320
Bezdrabko, Valentyna V. 2019b. “HANS HENRICH BOOMS AND ARCHIVAL APPRAISAL.” SUMY Historical and Archival Journal, no. 32: 5–11. https://doi.org/10.21272/shaj.2019.i32.p.5
Bezdrabko, Valentyna. 2026. “Dmytro Porfyriyovych But: Name Returned from Archival Silence.” Rukopisna ta knižkova spadŝina Ukraïni, no. 2: 162–79. https://doi.org/10.15407/rksu.41.162
Bhatia, Sharmila, E. Kyle Douglas, and Markus Most. 2020. “Blockchain and Records Management: Disruptive Force or New Approach?” Records Management Journal 30 (3): 277–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-08-2019-0040
Bilić, Marijana Todorović. 2025. “‘New’ Regulation on Records Management Operations of the Republic’s Administrative Bodies.” Moderna arhivistika 2 (8): 145. https://doi.org/10.54356/ma/2025/varp6780
Binder, Michaela, and Charlotte A. Roberts. 2023. “‘Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence’: Why Is There a Lack of Evidence for Cardiovascular Disease in the Bioarchaeological Record?” In The Bioarchaeology of Cardiovascular Disease. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108648561.015
Black, Alistair. 2024. “Memory and Amnesia in the Archival Practices of National Library and Information Associations.” IFLA Journal 50 (4): 696–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/03400352241236733
Blouin, Francis X. 1999. “Archivists, Mediation, and Constructs of Social Memory.” Archival Issues 24 (2). https://doi.org/10.31274/archivalissues.10880
Boeing-Phantom Works. 1997a. FATE–Block 1–Phase 1. Contract F33615-97-C-3806. Boeing-Phantom Works. https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/bfrptpa4/tsld001.htm
Boeing-Phantom Works. 1997b. FWV Demonstration Program. Contract F33615-97-C-3806. Boeing-Phantom Works. https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/bfrptpa4/tsld003.htm
Borglund Erik A.M. and Anderson Karen. 2011. “L.O.S.T Records: The Consequence of Inadequate Recordkeeping Strategies.” In Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-688-1-271
Bourdon, Françoise. 1992. “How Can IFLA Contribute to Solving Problems in Name Authority Control at the International Level?” IFLA Journal 18 (2): 135–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/034003529201800210
Boyko, Vita. 2024. “Value Categories of Archival Documents in Ukrainian Archival Science.” Scientific journal “Library Science Record Studies Informology”: 89–98. https://doi.org/10.63009/lsrsi/4.2024.89
Briguglio, Luigi, Paul K. D. Pacquing, Silvio Salza, and Maria Guercio. 2014. “A Modular Infrastructure for the Management of Authenticity and Persistent Identifiers in Long-Term Digital Preservation Repositories.” International Journal of Knowledge and Learning 9 (4): 281. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijkl.2014.069535
Brooks, Barbara J. 2005. “Reading the Japanese Colonial Archive: Gender and Bourgeois Civility in Korea and Manchuria before 1932.” In Gendering Modern Japanese History. Harvard University Asia Center. https://doi.org/10.1163/9781684174171_010
Brooks, Julie. 2019. “Perspectives on the Relationship between Records Management and Information Governance.” Records Management Journal 29 (1/2): 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-09-2018-0032
Brown, Richard. 1999. “Back to the Strategic Roots: Appraisal Reform at the National Archives of Canada.” Archival Issues 24 (2). https://doi.org/10.31274/archivalissues.10881
Brunskill, Charlotte. 2012a. “Developing a File Plan, Retention Schedule and Records Management Programme.” In Records Management for Museums and Galleries. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-84334-637-1.50007-7
Brunskill, Charlotte. 2012b. “Legislation and Records Management Requirements.” In Records Management for Museums and Galleries. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-84334-637-1.50004-1
Buenrostro, Iyra S. 2021. “Uncovering Archival Silences through Photographs and Listening.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003003618-7
Bunce, Catey, Krishna V. Patel, Wen Xing, Nick Freemantle, Caroline J. Doré, and On behalf of the Ophthalmic Statistics Group. 2014. “Ophthalmic Statistics Note 2: Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence.” British Journal of Ophthalmology 98 (5): 703–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304811
Bunjun, Benita. 2018. “The Making of a Colonial Archive: The Royal Commission on the Status of Women.” Education as Change 22 (2). https://doi.org/10.25159/1947-9417/3609
Burke, Edmund. 2014. “The Political Origins of the Moroccan Colonial Archive.” In The Ethnographic State. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520273818.003.0004
Burke, Edmund. 2015. “The Moroccan Colonial Archive and the Hidden History of Moroccan Resistance.” Maghreb Review 40 (1): 108–21. https://doi.org/10.1353/tmr.2015.0003
Burke, Susan K., and Jay Shorten. 2010. “Name Authority Work Today.” Library Resources & Technical Services 54 (1): 4–20. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.54n1.4
Burton, Antoinette. 2007. “Archive Stories: Gender in the Making of Imperial and Colonial Histories.” In Gender and Empire. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199249503.003.0013
Bygrave, Lee A., Susan Schiavetta, Hilde Thunem, Annebeth B. Lange, and Edward Phillips. 2009. “The Naming Game: Governance of the Domain Name System.” In Internet Governance. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199561131.003.0006
Carlson, Bronwyn Lee. 2021. “Data Silence in the Settler Archive.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003200611-9
“Categorical Work and Boundary Infrastructures: Enriching Theories of Classification.” 1999. In Sorting Things Out. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6352.003.0015
Celko, Joe. 2010. “Digital Object Identifier (DOI).” In Joe Celko’s Data, Measurements and Standards in SQL. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-374722-8.00029-3
Chakravorty, Swapan. 2021. “Silenced Archives and Archived Voices.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003003618-10
Chalmers, A. M. 1989. “Records Management in a Pharmaceutical Environment.” Records Management Journal 1 (1): 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb027018
Chandrakar, Rajesh. 2006. “Digital Object Identifier System: An Overview.” Electronic Library 24 (4): 445–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470610689151
“CHAPTER 34. CDS Records Retention.” 2016. In RSC Chromatography Monographs. Royal Society of Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1039/9781782624073-00657
“Chapter 7. Confessing in the Absence of Recording: Linguistic and Extralinguistic Evidence of Coercion in a Police Interrogation.” 2009. In Coerced Confessions. Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213492.171
“CHAPTER FOUR. Archival Appraisal Briefly Reviewed in Historical Context.” 2004. In Archival Appraisal. Walter de Gruyter – K. G. Saur. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783598440007.59
“CHAPTER THREE. the Corporate Memory and Records Management.” 2005. In Corporate Memory. Walter de Gruyter – K. G. Saur. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783598440113.23
“CHAPTER TWO Silence, Perseverance, and Survival in State-Run Philippine Film Archives.” 2024. In The Archival Afterlives of Philippine Cinema. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781478027867-005
“CHAPTER TWO. Appraisal and Archival Appraisal in Modern Organizations – Purpose, Participants, Roles and Responsibilities.” 2004. In Archival Appraisal. Walter de Gruyter – K. G. Saur. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783598440007.23
Chaputula, Aubrey Harvey. 2022. “E-Records Management Practices in Public Universities: A Developing Country Perspective.” Records Management Journal 32 (3): 213–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-06-2021-0027
Chartaby, Kiran. 1991. “Records Management — Quo Vadis?” Records Management Journal 3 (4): 108–13. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb027067
Chatterjee, I. 1997. “Testing the Local against the Colonial Archive.” History Workshop Journal 44 (1): 215–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/hwj/1997.44.215
Chen, Jengchung V., William H. Ross, and Shaoyu F. Huang. 2007. “Responding to Consumer Fairness Concerns about Number Portability Policies.” International Journal of Mobile Communications 5 (6): 661. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmc.2007.014180
Chris, Cynthia, and David A. Gerstner. 2013. “Anxieties of Authorship in the Colonial Archive.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203136010-23
Ciechanowski, Hadrian Michał. 2021. “The Principle of Provenance as the Principle of Rationalization of Archives.” Archiwa - Kancelarie - Zbiory, no. 12 (14). https://doi.org/10.12775/akz.2021.003
“Classification and Large-Scale Infrastructures.” 2000. In Sorting Things Out. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6352.003.0004
Comassar, S., US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and US Air Force. 1962. General Electric Direct-Air-Cycle Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program: Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Application Studies (Comprehensive Technical Report). Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/1048126
Commonwealth Secretariat. 1999. “Management of Active Records.” In Managing the Public Service: Strategies for Improvement. Commonwealth. https://doi.org/10.14217/9781848596719-5-en
Cook, Michael. 2017. “Acquisition and Archival Appraisal.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315238432-13
Cornwell, Sarah E. 2019. “Language Classification in the Ethnologue and Its Consequences.” Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l’ACSI. https://doi.org/10.29173/cais1104
Cottrell, W. B. ed. 1951. Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Project Quarterly Progress Report for Period Ending June 10, 1951. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/4172679
Cottrell, W. B. 1952. Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Project Quarterly Progress Report for Period Ending December 10, 1951. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/4139314
Cottrell, W. B. ed. 1953. Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Project Quarterly Progress Report for Period Ending March 10, 1953. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/4745448
Cox, Richard J. 1997. “More than Diplomatic: Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping.” Records Management Journal 7 (1): 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb027102
Cox, Richard. 2001. “Making the Records Speak: Archival Appraisal, Memory, Preservation, and Collecting.” American Archivist 64 (2): 394–404. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.64.2.223122p622215486
Cox, Richard J. 2003a. “10: Archival Appraisal Alchemy.” In Rowman & Littlefield Publishers eBooks. Rowman & Littlefield. https://doi.org/10.5771/9781417503704-259
Cox, Richard J. 2003b. “2: The End of Collecting: Toward a New Purpose for Archival Appraisal.” In Rowman & Littlefield Publishers eBooks. Rowman & Littlefield. https://doi.org/10.5771/9781417503704-19
Cox, Richard J. 2003c. “6: Metascheduling: Rethinking Archival Appraisal and Records Management Scheduling.” In Rowman & Littlefield Publishers eBooks. Rowman & Littlefield. https://doi.org/10.5771/9781417503704-147
Cronk, Quentin, and Mark Pitblado. 2026. “Downloading Images from GBIF: Licenses, Citation and Link Rot.” Biodiversity Informatics 20 (1). https://doi.org/10.17161/bi.v20i1.24326
Crookston, Mark. 2011. “Raising the Standard of Recordkeeping in the Pacific: The PARBICA Recordkeeping for Good Governance Toolkit.” Comma 2011 (2): 111–21. https://doi.org/10.3828/comma.2011.2.10
Cumming, Kate. 2007. “Purposeful Data: The Roles and Purposes of Recordkeeping Metadata.” Records Management Journal 17 (3): 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1108/09565690710833099
Cumming, Kate, and Cassie Findlay. 2010. “Digital Recordkeeping: Are We at a Tipping Point?” Records Management Journal 20 (3): 265–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/09565691011095292
Cummings, Louise. 2015. “Argument from Ignorance.” In Reasoning and Public Health: New Ways of Coping with Uncertainty. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15013-0_3
Cunliffe, William, and Michael Miller. 1989. “Writing a General Records Schedule for Electronic Records.” American Archivist 52 (3): 350–56. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.52.3.m2616844721653n5
Cupstid. 1997. “Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements, Block I.” https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA367849.pdf
Damasio, Edilson. 2013. “CrossRef, DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and Services: A Comparative Study Brazil/Portugal.” InCID: Revista de Ciência da Informação e Documentação 4 (2): 126. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2178-2075.v4i2p126-142
Danskin, Alan, Amanda Hill, and Daniel Needham. 2011. “The Names Project: A New Approach to Name Authority.” Information Standards Quarterly 23 (3): 14. https://doi.org/10.3789/isqv23n3.2011.04
Dappert, Angela, Adam Farquhar, Rachael A. Kotarski, and Kirstie Hewlett. 2017. “Connecting the Persistent Identifier Ecosystem: Building the Technical and Human Infrastructure for Open Research.” Data Science Journal 16. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-028
Dávila-Freire, Mela. 2020. “Reading the Archive against the Grain: Power Relations, Affective Affinities and Subjectivity in the Documenta Archive.” Art Libraries Journal 45 (3): 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/alj.2020.14
de Melo Fischer, Audrey Tseng, and Aileen Abril Barrera Novella. 2026. “Documenting Absence: Migrant Resistance and the Politics of Archival Gaps.” Thresholds, no. 54: 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1162/thld.a.212
de Oliveira, Lúcia Maria Velloso, and Bianca Therezinha Carvalho Panisset. 2025. “Understanding Representation in Archival Organization Knowledge Considering the Provenance, Type of Document and Access.” Communication technologies et développement 17. https://doi.org/10.4000/1414g
De Waard, Anita. 2019. “ORCID, RRID’s and Research Objects, Oh My!” Septentrio Conference Series, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.7557/5.4933
Dearstyne, Bruce W. 2006a. “Implementing Requirements for Recordkeeping: Moving from Theory to Practice.” In Rowman & Littlefield Publishers eBooks. Rowman & Littlefield. https://doi.org/10.5771/9781461658276-35
Delaney, Orla. 2026. “Feminism, Silence and Digital Mediation in Ireland’s Abortion Archive.” Cambridge Forum on AI: Culture and Society 2: e2. https://doi.org/10.1017/cfc.2025.10011
Delsey, Tom. 2024. “Authority Control in an International Context.” In Authority Control in the Online Environment. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003575375-2
Demb, Sarah R. 2012. “Records Management Basics.” In Records Management for Museums and Galleries. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-84334-637-1.50002-8
Designating and Naming Defense Military Aerospace Vehicles. 1997. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada339210
“Designating and Naming Military Aerospace Vehicles.” n.d. Accessed October 24, 2026. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/412015p.pdf
Desrochers-Turgeon, Émélie. 2022. “On the Silence of the Colonial Archive.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003052623-37
Dhiman, Anil Kumar. 2015. “Digital Object Identifier: A Unique Identifier for Scholarly Assets.” Pearl: A Journal of Library and Information Science 9 (4). https://doi.org/10.5958/0975-6922.2015.00032.7
Dibble, R., and US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1958. Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Department. Administrative Report. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/10202216
Dickson, Jean, and Patricia Zadner. 2024. “Authority Control and the Authority File: A Functional Evaluation of LCNAF on RUN.” In Authority Control in the Online Environment. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003575375-4
“Digital Object Identifier (DOI®) System.” 2009. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/e-elis3-120044418
“Digital Object Identifier (DOI®) System.” 2011. In Understanding Information Retrieval Systems. Auerbach Publications. https://doi.org/10.1201/b11499-52
DiLauro, Tim, G. Sayeed Choudhury, Mark Patton, James W. Warner, and Elizabeth W. Brown. 2001. “Automated Name Authority Control and Enhanced Searching in the Levy Collection.” D-Lib Magazine 7 (4). https://doi.org/10.1045/april2001-dilauro
Ditzler, Andy. 2014. “Preservations of Silence in the Queer Archive.” Lateral 3. https://doi.org/10.25158/l3.1.13
Diver, Mary Weppler-Van. 2024. “The Archival Silence of Hill’s Ferry, California.” International Journal of History Research 4 (2): 58–76. https://doi.org/10.47604/ijhr.3124
Dobrovolskis, F. 2003. “The New National Telephone Numbering Plan of Lithuania: Its Implementation and Future Perspectives.” Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika 47 (5). https://doi.org/10.5755/j02.eie.11274
“The Domain Name Registration System: An Overview.” 2012. In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203111727-10
“Domain Name Registration Systems in OECD Countries: Surveys, Illustrations and Analysis.” 2012. In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203111727-11
Dousa, Thomas. 2017. “Categories in Charles a. Cutter’s Systems of Subject Cataloging and Bibliographical Classification.” NASKO 5 (1): 82–102. https://doi.org/10.7152/nasko.v5i1.15182
Doyle, R. B. 1951. Calculated Performance of a Mercury-Compressor-Jet Powered Airplane Using a Nuclear Reactor as an Energy Source. NACA-RM-E51F14. NASA. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930086702
Dragon, Patricia M. 2009. “Name Authority Control in Local Digitization Projects and the Eastern North Carolina Postcard Collection.” Library Resources & Technical Services 53 (3): 185–96. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.53n3.185
Dralle, Kira. 2022. “Archival Silence in the Collections of Dietrich Schulz-Köhn.” Jazz & Culture 5 (1): 20–51. https://doi.org/10.5406/25784773.5.1.02
Dreyer, Britta, Stephanie Hagemann-Wilholt, Paul Vierkant, et al. 2019. “Die Rolle Der ORCID iD in Der Wissenschaftskommunikation: Der Beitrag Des ORCID-Deutschland-Konsortiums Und Das ORCID-DE-Projekt.” ABI Technik 39 (2): 112–21. https://doi.org/10.1515/abitech-2019-2004
Dryden, Jean. 2018. “From Authority Control to Context Control.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315877556-1
Duncan, Michael Gary. 2012. “The Curious Silence of the Dog and Paul of Tarsus; Revisiting the Argument from Silence.” Informal Logic 32 (1): 83. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v32i1.3139
Dunn, Linda. 2015. “Name Authority Control in Large Projects.” Indexer 33 (3). https://doi.org/10.3828/indexer.2015.32
Dunsworth, Edward. 2018. “Race, Exclusion, and Archival Silences in the Seasonal Migration of Tobacco Workers from the Southern United States to Ontario.” Canadian Historical Review 99 (4): 563–93. https://doi.org/10.3138/chr.2017-0134
Duranti, Luciana. 1994. “The Concept of Appraisal and Archival Theory.” American Archivist 57 (2): 328–44. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.57.2.pu548273j5j1p816
Duranti, Luciana. 1999. “Concepts and Principles for the Management of Electronic Records, or Records Management Theory Is Archival Diplomatics.” Records Management Journal 9 (3): 149–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000007248
Durepos, Gabrielle, and Amy Thurlow. 2025a. “Indigenous Persons in Canada, Archives and Silences.” In Archival Research in Historical Organisation Studies: Theorising Silences. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80382-133-720251004
Durepos, Gabrielle, and Amy Thurlow. 2025b. “Introducing Archival Research in Historical Organisation Studies: Theorising Silences.” In Archival Research in Historical Organisation Studies: Theorising Silences. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80382-133-720251001
Durepos, Gabrielle, and Amy Thurlow. 2025c. “Living with Archival Silences in Historical Organisation Studies: A Five-Point Agenda.” In Archival Research in Historical Organisation Studies: Theorising Silences. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80382-133-720251006
Durepos, Gabrielle, and Amy Thurlow. 2025d. “Making Sense of Silences in the Digital Archive.” In Archival Research in Historical Organisation Studies: Theorising Silences. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80382-133-720251005
Durepos, Gabrielle, and Amy Thurlow. 2025e. “Methods for Theorising Archival Silences.” In Archival Research in Historical Organisation Studies: Theorising Silences. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80382-133-720251002
Durepos, Gabrielle, and Amy Thurlow. 2025f. “Too Sexy for the Archive? Theorising Gendered Archival Silences.” In Archival Research in Historical Organisation Studies: Theorising Silences. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80382-133-720251003
e.V., Din, Andreas Köller, and Matthias Weber. 2021. “Records Management Nach ISO 15489.” In DIN Media eBooks. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783410306054-144
Eadon, Yvonne Melisande. 2019. ““Useful Information Turned into Something Useless”: Archival Silences, Imagined Records, and Suspicion of Mediated Information in the JFK Assassination Collection.” InterActions UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies 15 (2). https://doi.org/10.5070/d4152042683
Edquist, Samuel. 2023. “The Politics of Archival Appraisal in Sweden in the Digital Age.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003325406-4
“Effectiveness of Appraisal of Public Records in Tanzania: Findings from President’s Office Records and Archives Management Department (PO-RAMD).” 2019. Information and Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.7176/ikm/9-5-04
Egbuji, Angel. 1999. “Risk Management of Organisational Records.” Records Management Journal 9 (2): 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000007245
El-Sherbini, Magda. 2013. “Bibliotheca Alexandrina’s Model for Arabic Name Authority Control.” Library Resources & Technical Services 57 (1): 4–17. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.57n1.4
Ellis, Judith. 2005. “Implementing a Solution for Electronic Recordkeeping in the Public Sector.” In Managing Electronic Records. Facet. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781856049160.012
Ellis, Justin R., Emma Bunn, Grace Barham, and Kate Senior. 2026. “Interrogating Queer Silence in the Archive: A Multiversal Approach to Archival Justice.” Media International Australia: 1329878X251405567. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x251405567
Emberley, Julia V. 1990. “‘A Gift for Languages’: Native Women and the Textual Economy of the Colonial Archive.” Cultural Critique, no. 17: 21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1354138
Evans, Joanne, Moira Paterson, Melissa Castan, Jade Purtell, and Mya Ballin. 2024. “Participatory and Proactive: Real-Time Rights-Based Recordkeeping Governance for the Alternative Care of Children.” Records Management Journal 34 (2/3): 171–89. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-11-2023-0069
“Executive Briefing: The Digital Object Identifier.” 1999. Information Services & Use 19 (3): 179–81. https://doi.org/10.3233/isu-1999-19303
Fan, Guanyan. 2018. “Making Better out of Technologies: Responses of Interpares to Digital Records Management Challenges.” In International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.5220/0007230800002053
Farrell, Mark. 2024. “Accountability as a Mechanism and a Virtue in Irish Public Sector Recordkeeping.” Records Management Journal 34 (2/3): 190–204. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-09-2023-0051
Fenly, Judith G. 1985. “Name Authority Co-Op (NACO) Project.” North Carolina Libraries. https://doi.org/10.3776/ncl.v43i4.3763
Fenner, Martin H. 2011. “ORCID: Unique Identifiers for Authors and Contributors.” Information Standards Quarterly 23 (3): 10. https://doi.org/10.3789/isqv23n3.2011.03
Fenner, Martin, Consol Garcia Gómez, and Gudmundur A. Thorisson. 2011. “Key Issue Collective Action for the Open Researcher & Contributor ID (ORCID).” Serials: The Journal for the Serials Community 24 (3): 277–79. https://doi.org/10.1629/24277
Ferreira, Elisabete, Fabiane Führ, Karolayne Costa Rodrigues de Lima, Paula Carina de Araújo, and Suzana Zulpo Pereira. 2015. “Digital Object Identifier (DOI): o que é, para que serve, como se usa?” AtoZ novas práticas em informação e conhecimento 4 (1): 5. https://doi.org/10.5380/atoz.v4i1.42369
Fithri, Ubaidil, and Ribut Basuki. 2026. “Colonial Archive Gaps and Historical Trauma: Reading Krakatau 1883 and the Geger Cilegon 1888 in Postcolonial Consciousness.” Kata Kita: Journal of Language, Literature, and Teaching 14 (2): 282–92. https://doi.org/10.9744/katakita.14.2.282-292
Foley, Michael, and David Kochalko. 2012. Open Researcher and Contributor Identification (ORCID). https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314850
Folkner, Cheri A., and Barbara C. Glackin. 2009. “Idaho Participation in NACO: The Effect on Idaho Corporate Name Authority Control.” Library Resources & Technical Services 53 (3): 197–207. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.53n3.197
Foscarini, Fiorella, Madeleine Krucker, and Danyse Golick. 2021. “Meeting Technologies and Recordkeeping: A Preliminary Study.” Records Management Journal 32 (1): 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-07-2021-0028
Fraccaroli, Yuri, and Patricio Simonetto. 2025. “An LGTBIQ + Archival Boom? Grassroot Archival Activism and Memory Politics in Latin America.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 28 (6): 1192–1209. https://doi.org/10.1177/13678779251345149
Franks, Patricia C. 2015. “New Technologies, New Challenges: Records Retention and Disposition in a Cloud Environment / Nouvelles Technologies, Nouveaux Défis: Conservation Et Déclassement Des Documents Dans Un Environnement De Nuage Informatique.” Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 39 (2): 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1353/ils.2015.0011
Franks, Patricia C. 2020. “Implications of Blockchain Distributed Ledger Technology for Records Management and Information Governance Programs.” Records Management Journal 30 (3): 287–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-08-2019-0047
Friedland, Robert P. 2025. “Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence.” In Ninety-Nine Lessons in Critical Thinking, edited by Robert P. Friedland. Oxford University PressNew York. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780197756218.003.0046
Friedrich, Markus. 2021. “A Jesuit Culture of Records?: The Society of Jesus, the Life Cycle of Administrative Documents, and the Late Medieval and Early Modern History of Bureaucratic Information.” International Symposia on Jesuit Studies 1 (1). https://doi.org/10.51238/isjs.2019.06
Frings-Hessami, Viviane, and Zoe Henderson. 2025. “Recordkeeping Needs and Capabilities of Small Migrant Community Organisations Run by Volunteers.” Records Management Journal 35 (2): 180–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-01-2024-0003
Frings-Hessami, Viviane, and Gillian Oliver. 2022. “Recordkeeping Culture in Switzerland: The Impact of Language and Communication on the Success of Recordkeeping Initiatives.” Records Management Journal 32 (2): 113–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-05-2021-0022
Fuzeau, Pierre. 2005. “Records Management: Two Case Studies from the French Private Sector.” In Managing Electronic Records. Facet. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781856049160.011
Fuzeau, Pierre. 2014. “La certification, ciment du records management et de l’archivage.” In Archimag. https://doi.org/10.3917/serda.archi.2014.01.0004
“Gaps in the Archive:: Saidiya Hartman’s Wayward Lives, Beautiful Experiments.” 2024. In The Presence of Absence. punctum books. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.20626759.6
Garaba, Francis. 2026. “Trump(eting) Evidence Concealment: Recordkeeping Turmoil in the United States of America and Lessons on Presidential Records within the Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Branch of the International Council on Archives (ESARBICA).” Atlanti + 36 (1): 87–104. https://doi.org/10.33700/2670-4579.36.1.87-104(2026)
Garcia-Murillo, Martha A. 2007. “Number Portability in Central America.” info 9 (4): 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636690710762110
Gardner, R. Allen, and Beatrix T. Gardner. 1991. “Absence of Evidence and Evidence of Absence.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (4): 558–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00071314
Gauba, Kanika. 2024. “Sieving Silence: The Communal Question and the Archive of Indian Constitutional History.” National Law School Journal 18 (1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.55496/czhj5239
Ghalumyan, Armen. 2017. “Study of the Mobile Number Portability MNP Implementations in Belarus and Georgia.” In Fifth International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication and Information Technology - CCIT 2017. Institute of Research Engineers and Doctors. https://doi.org/10.15224/978-1-63248-131-3-66
Ghalumyan, Armen. 2018. “Institutional Stakeholder Perceptions on Mobile Number Portability Implementations in Georgia and Belarus.” Open Science Journal 3 (4). https://doi.org/10.23954/osj.v3i4.1705
Gill, James, and Thornton Mitchell. 1963. “Ohio—Disposition of Medical Records in State Mental Hospitals.” American Archivist 26 (3): 371–78. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.26.3.t17q8377w20w5626
Gilliland-Swetland, Luke. 1991. “The Provenance of a Profession: The Permanence of the Public Archives and Historical Manuscripts Traditions in American Archival History.” American Archivist 54 (2): 160–75. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.54.2.w42580v137053675
Gjika, Jonida, and Endira Bushati. 2023. “Balancing Legal Framework, Regulatory Mechanisms and Competition across Number Portability in Albania.” Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 12 (6): 261. https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2023-0168
Glanville, Lachlan. 2017. “The End of Reckoning – Archival Silences in the Germaine Greer Archive.” Archives and Manuscripts 46 (1): 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/01576895.2017.1410187
Goddard, Lisa. 2021. “Persistent Identifiers as Open Research Infrastructure to Reduce Administrative Burden.” Pop! Public Open Participatory 03. https://doi.org/10.54590/pop.2021.006
Goeman-Shulsky, Sedonna. 2022. “Refusal to Record: Intentional Silences as a Method of Archival Justice.” Wicazo Sa Review 37 (1–2): 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1353/wic.2022.a944281
Goldenberg, Dov. 2014. “The Importance of the DOI Digital Object Identifier.” Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica (RBCP) – Brazilian Journal of Plastic Sugery 29 (3). https://doi.org/10.5935/2177-1235.2014rbcp0058
Golding, Rosemary. 2022. “Sounding the Archival Silence: Searching for Music in the Nineteenth-Century English Asylum.” Social History of Medicine 35 (4): 1223–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/shm/hkac035
Goldman, Helen, and David M. Smith. 2024. “Name Authority in a NOTIS Environment— Auburn University Libraries.” In Authority Control in the Online Environment. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003575375-8
Gómez-Ontiveros, Luis V. 2017. “Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID).” Revista Biomédica 28 (1). https://doi.org/10.32776/revbiomed.v28i1.551
Gould, Maria. 2022. “People, Places, and Things: Persistent Identifiers in the Scholarly Communication Landscape.” College & Research Libraries News 83 (9). https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.83.9.398
Gould, Maria, and Maria Praetzellis. 2021. “Open Persistent Identifiers: The Building Blocks of Sustainable Scholarly Infrastructure.” Research Library Issues, no. 302: 5–18. https://doi.org/10.29242/rli.302.2
“Government Records Management/Recordkeeping.” 2009. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/e-elis3-120044294
Grant, Rebecca. 2017. “Recordkeeping and Research Data Management: A Review of Perspectives.” Records Management Journal 27 (2): 159–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-10-2016-0036
Gray, Jane. 2019. “Explaining Macro-Social Change with Archived Data: Reading against the Grain.” Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej 15 (1): 14–31. https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8069.15.1.02
Gualtieri, Sarah M. A. 2019. “The Syrian of Sleepy Lagoon: Ethnic Coalitions and Archival Silence.” American Quarterly 71 (2): 425–47. https://doi.org/10.1353/aq.2019.0037
Guercio, Maria, María Mata Caravaca, and Людмила Н. Варламова. 2020. “Policies and Standards for Recordkeeping and Digital Preservation.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003005117-5
Guillermo de Jesús Valdivia-Medina. 2023. “Feasibility Study for the Implementation of Number Portability in Nicaragua.” Revista Tecnología en Marcha. https://doi.org/10.18845/tm.v36i6.6763
Guimarães, José Augusto Chaves, José Antonio da Silva, and Lúcia Maria Velloso de Oliveira. 2025. “Provenance in Archival Knowledge Organization: Challenges for Tackling Fake News under the Perspective of Social Epistemology.” Communication technologies et développement 17. https://doi.org/10.4000/1414i
Guimarães, José Augusto Chaves, and Natália Bolfarini Tognoli. 2015. “Provenance as a Domain Analysis Approach in Archival Knowledge Organization.” KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION 42 (8): 562–69. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2015-8-562
Gutterman, Alan S. 2023. “Records Retention.” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4563636
Habermann, Ted, Michael Flanagan, Keith Maull, and Matthew Mayernik. 2026. “Scaling ORCID Adoption: Technical and Organizational Approaches within a Research Organization.” Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 14 (1). https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.19041
Halidu, Yahaya. 2025. “Silence, Power, and the Archive: Reading Marisa J. Fuentes and Michel-Rolph Trouillot.” Acta Globalis Humanitatis et Linguarum 2 (5): 126–27. https://doi.org/10.69760/aghel.0250050012
Hardisty, Alex, Wouter Addink, Falko Glöckler, Anton Güntsch, Sharif Islam, and Claus Weiland. 2021. “A Choice of Persistent Identifier Schemes for the Distributed System of Scientific Collections (DiSSCo).” Research Ideas and Outcomes 7. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.7.e67379
Hardisty, Alex, Larry Lannom, Dimitrios Koureas, Wouter Addink, and Claus Weiland. 2019. “‘The Last Mile’: The Registry behind the Identifier.” Biodiversity Information Science and Standards 3. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.3.37034
Hardy, Debra A. 2021. “Archival Silence as a Learning Opportunity.” In Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-64802-625-620251021
Harris, Verne. 2002a. “The Archival Sliver: A Perspective on the Construction of Social Memory in Archives and the Transition from Apartheid to Democracy.” In Refiguring the Archive. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0570-8_9
Hartung, John, James E. Cottrell, and Joseph P. Giffin. 1983. “Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence.” Anesthesiology 58 (3): 298–99. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-198303000-00033
Hartzell, Karl. 1946. “Home Front Records of New York, 1940-1945: The Problem of Disposition.” American Archivist 9 (2): 152–60. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.9.2.x5v74645l430w20m
Harwood, Richard L. 1986. “Name-Authority Control Using dBASE III Plus.” OCLC Micro 2 (5): 37–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055804
Hasan, Ragib, and Marianne Winslett. 2010. “Trustworthy Vacuuming and Litigation Holds in Long-Term High-Integrity Records Retention.” In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Extending Database Technology. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1739041.1739115
Hasan, Ragib, Marianne Winslett, Soumyadeb Mitra, Windsor Hsu, and Radu Sion. 2008. “Trustworthy Records Retention.” In Handbook of Database Security. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-48533-1_15
He, Ying, and Kun Tian. 2018. “Scientometric Analysis on the Developments of Archival Appraisal Theories.” In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Information Technology and Management Engineering (ICITME 2018). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/icitme-18.2018.17
Henderson, Andrew. 2019. “Archiving Revolution: Historical Records Management in the Massachusetts Courts.” In The Court as Archive. ANU Press. https://doi.org/10.22459/ca.2019.10
Heredia, Ana, and Paloma Marín-Arraiza. 2022. “ORCID e o Papel Dos Identificadores Persistentes Para a Ciência Aberta.” In Comunicação científica aberta. Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia (IBICT). https://doi.org/10.21452/abec.2022.isbn.978-65-89167-68-6.007
Hernández, Bernadine. 2024. “Archival Absence, Archival Excess.” American Studies 63 (2): 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1353/ams.2024.a940059
Hickman, Kristin E., and Claire A. Hill. 2010. “Concepts, Categories, and Compliance in the Regulatory State.” Minnesota Law Review 94 (4): 1151. https://doi.org/10.24926/265535.1398
Hobart, Elizabeth. 2019. “Catalogue Analytics to Improve Delivery in a Special Collections Library: An Evidence Based Approach to Catalogue Maintenance.” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 14 (3): 124–27. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29603
Hofman, Darra L., and Shadrack Katuu. 2022. “Law and Recordkeeping.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003203155-2
Horn, Katrin. 2020. “Of Gaps and Gossip: Intimacy in the Archive.” Anglia 138 (3): 428–48. https://doi.org/10.1515/ang-2020-0037
Horváth, István. 2006. “Ethnic Categories and the Changing Methods of Classification – an Attempt to Conceptual Systematization.” Erdélyi Társadalom 4 (2): 101–15. https://doi.org/10.17177/77171.71
Hosker, Rachel, and Lesley Richmond. 2006. “‘Seek and Destroy’ – an Archival Appraisal Theory and Strategy.” In Record Keeping in a Hybrid Environment. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-84334-142-0.50007-4
Humble, L. V., W. W. Wachtl, and R. B. Doyle. 1950. Preliminary Analysis of Three Cycles for Nuclear Propulsion of Aircraft. NACA-RM-E50H24. NASA. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930086366
Hunt-Kennedy, Stefanie. 2021. “Silence and Violence in the Archive of Slavery.” English Language Notes 59 (1): 222–24. https://doi.org/10.1215/00138282-8815104
Hurley, Chris. 2005. “Recordkeeping and Accountability.” In Archives. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-876938-84-0.50009-3
Hussin, Nurussobah, and Rusnah Johare. 2014. “Functional Requirements for an Electronic Records Management System for Court Records.” In Concepts and Advances in Information Knowledge Management. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781780634357.1.73
“Identity, Trust, Evidence and the Recordkeeping Nexus.” 2006. In The archivist’s library. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4714-2_2
“The Internet Address Space.” 2009. In Protocol Politics. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8065.003.0006
“Introduction: Absence of Evidence or Evidence of Absence?” 2023. In The Apocalypse of the Birds. Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781399508674-003
“Introduction: Of Soft and Savage Bodies in the Colonial Domestic Archive.” 2007. In Defamiliarizing the Aboriginal. University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442684270-003
Islam, Sharif, Soulaine Theocharides, and Wouter Addink. 2022. “Zen and the Art of Persistent Identifier Service Development for Digital Specimen.” Biodiversity Information Science and Standards 6. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.6.91168
Ivanov, Asen Ognyanov. 2017. “Practice Theory: A New Approach for Archival and Recordkeeping Research.” Records Management Journal 27 (2): 104–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-10-2016-0038
Jain, Sanjeev Kumar, Jignesh Makwana, and Kaja Bantha Navas R. 2023. “ORCID Adoption by the LIS Faculty Community of India.” DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology 43 (06): 448–53. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.43.06.19178
Jansen, Eva. 2013. “A Review of Boundary Objects in Classification Research.” Advances in Classification Research Online 23 (1): 52. https://doi.org/10.7152/acro.v23i1.14262
Jaykaran, Jaykaran, Deepak B. Saxena, Preeti P. Yadav, and Nd Kantharia. 2011. “Nonsignificant P Values Cannot Prove Null Hypothesis: Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence.” Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences 3 (3): 465. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.84470
Jensen, Matthew D. 2023. “An End to the Silence: The Misuse of the “Argument from Silence”.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 33 (3): 324–36. https://doi.org/10.5325/bullbiblrese.33.3.0324
Johnes, Martin. 2020. “Race, Archival Silences, and a Black Footballer between the Wars.” Twentieth Century British History 31 (4): 530–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/tcbh/hwaa023
Johnson, Doug. 1996. “Records Management in the USA.” Records Management Journal 6 (3): 211–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb027098
Jokić, Olivera. 2012. “Death of a Beautiful Moor Woman: Obstinate Clerks and the Form of Evidence in the British Colonial Archive.” Essays in Romanticism 19 (1): 83–102. https://doi.org/10.3828/eir.2012.19.7
Jordan, W., S. Cramer, and A. Miller. 1957. Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program: Quarterly Progress Report for Period Ending December 31, 1956, Part 1: 5. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/1373535
Joseph, Pauline. 2016. “A Case Study of Records Management Practices in Historic Motor Sport.” Records Management Journal 26 (3): 314–36. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-08-2015-0031
Joseph, Pauline, Shelda Debowski, and Peter Goldschmidt. 2012. “Paradigm Shifts in Recordkeeping Responsibilities: Implications for ISO 15489’s Implementation.” Records Management Journal 22 (1): 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/09565691211222108
Juty, Nick, Nicolas Le Novère, Henning Hermjakob, and Camille Laibe. 2013. “Towards the Collaborative Curation of the Registry Underlying Identifiers.org.” Database 2013. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bat017
Kačar, Sonja. 2021. “Evidence of Absence or Absence of Evidence?: Searching for Late Mesolithic (Castelnovian) Hunter-Gatherers in the Eastern Adriatic.” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 33 (2): 160–84. https://doi.org/10.1558/jma.19471
Kafka, Ben. 2009. “Paperwork: The State of the Discipline.” Book History 12 (1): 340–53. https://doi.org/10.1353/bh.0.0024
Källberg, Maria. 2010. “Taking Care of Business: But What about the Records?: A Swedish Study of Recordkeeping Expertise in Business Development Projects.” Comma 2010 (1): 169–88. https://doi.org/10.3828/comma.2010.1.17
Kang, Dongkyun, and Hae-Young Rieh. 2016. “Improvement Direction of the Public Records Management System for the Application of MSR (Management System for Records).” Journal of Records Management & Archives Society of Korea 16 (4): 121–48. https://doi.org/10.14404/jksarm.2016.16.4.121
Kansa, Eric C., and Sarah Whitcher Kansa. 2022. “Promoting Data Quality and Reuse in Archaeology through Collaborative Identifier Practices.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119 (43): e2109313118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109313118
Katuu, Shadrack. 2023. “Soup Du Jour – Existing and Emerging Trends in Archives and Records Management Standardization.” Records Management Journal 34 (1): 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-08-2023-0042
Kautto, Tuija, and Virpi Hotti. 2024. “Hidden Stakeholder Views in Finnish Archival Act Law Drafting: A Recordkeeping Perspective.” Records Management Journal 34 (2/3): 205–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-09-2023-0049
Kavishe, George Firmin, and Francis Garaba. 2025. “Enhancing Recordkeeping in Tanzanian Public Universities through Robust Records Disaster Preparedness.” Journal of the South African Society of Archivists 58: 153–73. https://doi.org/10.4314/jsasa.v58i.10
Kemoni, Henry N. 1998. “The Impact of Records Centres on the Management of Public Sector Records in Kenya.” Records Management Journal 8 (1): 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000007230
Kemoni, Henry Nyabuto, Patrick Ngulube, and Christine I. Stilwell. 2007. “Public Records and Archives as Tools for Good Governance: Reflections within the Recordkeeping Scholarly and Practitioner Communities.” ESARBICA Journal Journal of the Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Branch of the International Council on Archives 26 (1). https://doi.org/10.4314/esarjo.v26i1.31012
Kerr, Anita. 2020. “Satellites and Silence a Tale of Recordkeeping in Antarctica.” Archifacts. https://doi.org/10.26686/arch.10361
Ketelaar, Eric. 2005. “Recordkeeping and Societal Power 1 1This Essay Is a Revised and Expanded Version of My ‘Archival Temples, Archival Prisons: Modes of Power and Protection’, Archival Science, 2, 2002, Pp, 221-238, Which Was Based on My ‘Empowering Archives: What Society Expects of Archivists’, past Caring? What Does Society Expect of Archivists? Proceedings of the Australian Society of Archivists Conference, Sydney 13-17 August 2002, Canberra, Australian Society of Archivists, 2002, Pp, 11-27, and on a Paper 1 Presented in the Seminar ‘Archives, Documentation and the Institutions of Social Memory’, Organized by the Bentley Historical Library and the International Institute of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 31 January 2001.” In Archives. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-876938-84-0.50011-1
Ketzmerick-Calandrino, Maria. 2024. “Colonial Dis/Continuities in Cameroon and the Postcolonial Dilemma in the Archive.” Global Studies Quarterly 4 (3): ksae066. https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksae066
Khoruzhenko, Tatiana. 2023. “Paralipsis Archives: Ways of Localisation and Interpretation of Gaps in a Folklore Archive.” Quaestio Rossica 11 (4). https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.4.849
Kikki, Jaana. 2000. “A New Model for Electronic Recordkeeping in the Finnish Defence Forces.” Records Management Journal 10 (3): 150–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000007261
Kim, Myoung-Hun. 2008. “A Study on Reconstructing Archival Appraisal Regime of Foreign Countries in Electronic Record Environments: Focusing on Archival Appraisal Strategies in a National Point of Views.” Journal of Information Management 39 (2): 95–130. https://doi.org/10.1633/jim.2008.39.2.095
Kim, Myoung-Hun. 2010. “Records Continuum, Appraisal and Archival Contents: Building the Concept of Archival Contents.” Journal of Information Management 41 (3): 131–53. https://doi.org/10.1633/jim.2010.41.3.131
Kim, Jin Ki. 2019. “Roles between Interest Groups on Number Portability Policy and Operations.” Information Society & Media 20 (2): 67–99. https://doi.org/10.52558/ism.2019.08.20.2.67
Kimutai, Metto S., Kimutai Kimeli, and Fredrick Mzee Awuor. 2013. “Mobile Number Portability: A Case Study of Kenya.” Technology and Investment 04 (04): 255–60. https://doi.org/10.4236/ti.2013.44030
Kirby, Roberta F. 2024. “Authority Control in NOTIS.” In Authority Control in the Online Environment. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003575375-7
Klaes, Matthias. 2003. “Residual Categories and the Evolution of Economic Knowledge.” In Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781008744.00009
Klareld, Ann-Sofie. 2018. “Recordkeeping in an Outsourcing Public Agency.” Records Management Journal 28 (1): 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-02-2017-0002
Klein, Lauren F. 2013. “The Image of Absence: Archival Silence, Data Visualization, and James Hemings.” American Literature 85 (4): 661–88. https://doi.org/10.1215/00029831-2367310
Knyazeva, Anna, Oleg Kolobov, and Igor Turchanovsky. 2016. “An Example of Automatic Authority Control.” In Proceedings of the 16th ACM/IEEE-CS on Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2910896.2925458
Kortenaar, Neil ten. 2025. “The Colonial Archive.” In African Literature in Transition. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009662376.003
Kraemer, Ross Shepard. 2020. “The Absence of Evidence as the Evidence of Absence.” In The Mediterranean Diaspora in Late Antiquity. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190222277.003.0001
Krauskopf, Erwin, and Mauricio Salgado. 2023. “Inconsistency in the Registration of the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of Articles on Web of Science and Scopus.” Investigación Bibliotecológica: archivonomía, bibliotecología e información 37 (96): 129–44. https://doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2023.96.58784
Król, Karol. 2019. “The Link Rot Phenomenon and Its Influence on the Quality of the Websites of Rural Tourism Facilities in Poland.” Economic and Regional Studies / Studia Ekonomiczne i Regionalne 12 (1): 68–79. https://doi.org/10.2478/ers-2019-0007
Kumar, D. Vinay, B. T. Sampath Kumar, D. R. Parameshwarappa, and Apollo Hospitals. 2015. “URLs Link Rot: Implications for Electronic Publishing.” World Digital Libraries - An International Journal 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.18329/09757597/2015/8105
Kurakawa, Kei, and Hideaki Takeda. 2012. “An introduction to ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID).” Journal of Information Processing and Management 54 (10): 622–31. https://doi.org/10.1241/johokanri.54.622
Lacovino, Livia. 2005. “Recordkeeping and Juridical Governance.” In Archives. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-876938-84-0.50010-x
Lange, Britta. 2018. “Archival Silences as Historical Sources. Reconsidering Sound Recordings of Prisoners of War (1915-1918) from the Berlin Lautarchiv.” SoundEffects - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Sound and Sound Experience 7 (3): 46–60. https://doi.org/10.7146/se.v7i3.105232
Larkin, Harold. 1942. “Retention of Life Insurance Records.” American Archivist 5 (2): 93–99. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.5.2.k684w52026855k53
Larson, John W. 1959a. Advanced Nuclear Turbojet Powerplant Characteristics Summary for Supersonic Aircraft. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/1245002
Larson, John W. 1959b. Supplement 1: Advanced Nuclear Turbojet Powerplant Characteristics Summary for Supersonic Aircraft. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/1245004
Lavine, Matthew, and Kathleen Sullivan Thomas. 2024. “Hidden, Lost, and Forgotten Labor: A Tour of the Society’s Archival Record.” Isis 115 (3): 582–92. https://doi.org/10.1086/731565
Layman, D., US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and US Air Force. 1962. General Electric Direct-Air-Cycle Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program: XNJ140E Nuclear Turbojet, Section 4. Reactor. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/12555356
Lee, Sangmin. 2008. “Recordkeeping Innovations and Presidential Records Issues in Korea.” Comma 2008 (2): 151–56. https://doi.org/10.3828/comma.2008.2.17
Lee, So-Yeon. 2015. “Improvement Strategies for the Standard Records Management System of Korea.” Journal of Records Management & Archives Society of Korea 15 (1): 29–52. https://doi.org/10.14404/jksarm.2015.15.1.029
Lee, Hosin. 2016. “A Discourse on the Arrangement and Description of Performing Arts Records: Focusing on the Principle of Respect for Provenance and Retention of the Original Order.” Journal of Records Management & Archives Society of Korea 16 (1): 151–74. https://doi.org/10.14404/jksarm.2016.16.1.151
Lee-Gulley, Patricia, and John Drudi. 2022. “Records Management/Records Retention Risk Considerations.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351107242-27
LeeInHo. 2013. “Unconstitutionality of the Policy against Mobile Number Portability on 01X G2 Mobile Telephone Users.” Chung_ang LAW Review 15 (4): 47–87. https://doi.org/10.21759/caulaw.2013.15.4.47
“Legal and Social Relationships and the Recordkeeping Nexus.” 2006. In The archivist’s library. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4714-2_3
Lehnert, Kerstin, Jens Klump, Lesley Wyborn, and Sarah Ramdeen. 2019. “Persistent, Global, Unique: The Three Key Requirements for a Trusted Identifier System for Physical Samples.” Biodiversity Information Science and Standards 3: e37334. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.3.37334
Leuner, Kirstyn. 2021. “Restoring Authority for Women Writers: Name Authority Records as Digital Recovery Scholarship.” Huntington Library Quarterly 84 (1): 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2021.0002
Leverett, M. C. 1959. “Some Views on Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion.” SAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series 1. https://doi.org/10.4271/590261
Lewis, Jack. 2024. “The History and Potential of Nuclear Jet Propulsion in Aircraft.” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.21955/nuclscitechnolopenres.1115149.1
Li, Yahan. 2025. “Risk Categories as Boundary Work: How Classification Regimes Reorder Innovation and Inequality.” Digital Society & Virtual Governance 1 (2): 62–79. https://doi.org/10.6914/dsvg.010204
Li, Siyi, and Guanyan Fan. 2018. “Study on Relationships between Government Integrity and Digital Records Management: A Chinese Case.” In International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.5220/0007230900002053
Li, Meijuan, and Lili Zhang. 2017. “Practice and Experience Reference of the Number Portability Policy in Typical Countries or Regions.” In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Education Science and Economic Management (ICESEM 2017). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/icesem-17.2017.42
Lihoma, Paul. 2021. “Silences in Malawi’s Archives.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003003618-8
Lindsay, David F. 2016. “Domain Name Governance: “Scheherazade on Steroids”.” In Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783479924.00047
Lisanyuk, E. N., and A. A. Khamidov. 2021. “Argument from Ignorance and Argument from Silence.” Discourse 7 (1): 5–16. https://doi.org/10.32603/2412-8562-2021-7-1-5-16
Liu, Jia. 2021a. “Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and DOI Services: An Overview.” Libri 71 (4): 349–60. https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2020-0018
Liu, Jia. 2021b. “Digital Object Identifier (DOI) under the Context of Research Data Librarianship.” Journal of eScience Librarianship 10 (2): 1180. https://doi.org/10.7191/jeslib.2021.1180
Lockheed Martin. 1997a. Conclusions and Recommendations. Contract F33615-97-C-3804. Lockheed Martin. https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/fatereport/sld058.htm
Lockheed Martin. 1997b. Five Technologies Selected for Study. Contract F33615-97-C-3804. Lockheed Martin. https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/fatereport/sld011.htm
Lockheed Martin. 1997c. Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements (FATE): FATE I Phase I Final Report Briefing. Contract F33615-97-C-3804. Lockheed Martin. https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/fatereport/index.htm
Lockheed Martin. 1997d. Lockheed-Martin – Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements (FATE). Contract F33615-97-C-3804. Lockheed Martin. https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/fatereport/sld001.htm
Loosley Leeming, Emma. 2018. “An Argument from Silence: The Differing Evidence in the Syriac and Georgian Language Sources.” In Architecture and Asceticism: Cultural interaction between Syria and Georgia in Late Antiquity. BRILL. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004375314_009
Lopes, Maria Inês. 1993. “Subject Authority Control in a Union Catalogue: Perspectives for a National Co-Operative Project in Portugal.” KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION 20 (3): 133–38. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-1993-3-133
Lubarsky, B., and B. L. Greenstreet. 1953. Thermodynamic and Heat Transfer Analysis of the Aircraft Reactor Experiment. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/4123903
Luyombya, David. 2011. “ICT and Digital Records Management in the Ugandan Public Service.” Records Management Journal 21 (2): 135–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/09565691111152062
Lyna, Dries, and Luc Bulten. 2021. “Classifications at Work: Social Categories and Dutch Bureaucracy in Colonial Sri Lanka.” Itinerario 45 (2): 252–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0165115321000152
Machado, Bruno Henrique, Rafael Aparecido Moron Semidão, Telma Campanha de Carvalho Mádio, and Daniel Martínez-Ávila. 2020. Provenance as an Ethical Measure for the Archival Knowledge Organization of Photographs. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783956507762-557
Madayag, Jessica. 2025. Enhancing Records Management Practices: A Basis for Policy Formulation and Institutional Improvement. https://doi.org/10.5220/0014867100005061
Mahler, Tobias. 2019. “A Global ‘Private’ Regime Governing the Domain Name System (DNS).” In Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786435149.00012
Malatji, Refilwe Mpho, and Makutla Mojapelo. 2025. “Implementation of a Records Classification System for Proper Recordkeeping in the Northwest Provincial Department of Community Safety and Transport Management, South Africa.” Journal of the South African Society of Archivists 58: 196–212. https://doi.org/10.4314/jsasa.v58i1.12
“The Management of Native Estate Records in the NAN.” 2017. In “Little Research Value”. Basler Afrika Bibliographien. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh9vvr0.10
Manase, Josephine, Kelefa Mwantimwa, and Tumpe Ndimbwa. 2024. “Use of Records Management Systems in Tanzania Public Sector Organisations.” Records Management Journal 35 (1): 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-12-2021-0041
Mancuso, Lara. 2013. “Archival Appraisal in Brazil.” Archives and Manuscripts 41 (2): 146–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/01576895.2013.801101
Manoharan, Kathiravan. 2025. “Records Management: Managing Data Growth and Retention in the Information World.” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5284198
Margolis, Ellie. 2018. “Link Rot, Reference Rot and the Thorny Problems of Legal Citation.” In Partners for Preservation. Facet. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783303496.007
Marín-Arraiza, Paloma, and Ana Heredia. 2021. “FAIR PIDs: O Papel Da ORCID No Fortalecimento Dos Princípios FAIR.” In Princípios FAIR aplicados à gestão de dados de pesquisa. Ibict. https://doi.org/10.22477/9786589167242.cap2
Marín-Arraiza, Paloma, and Ana Heredia. 2024. “Fair Pids: The Role of ORCID in Strengthening the Fair Principles.” In Fair principles applied to research data management: brazilian experiences. Editora Ibict. https://doi.org/10.22477/9788570131959.cap1
Marraffa, Luc. 2026. “Glitching Colonial Radio History: Listening for Non-Linear Temporalities in the Archive.” Paragraph 49 (1): 94–110. https://doi.org/10.3366/para.2026.0517
Martínez, María Elena. 2016. “Sex and the Colonial Archive: The Case of “Mariano” Aguilera.” Hispanic American Historical Review 96 (3): 421–43. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182168-3601634
Marutha, Ngoako Solomon. 2020. “Landscaping Health-Care System Using Functional Records Management Activities.” Collection and Curation 40 (1): 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/cc-03-2020-0006
Masibi, Tiragalo Josephine, Nathan Mwakoshi Mnjama, and Peter Mazebe Ii Mothataesi Sebina. 2023. “Archival Silences within the National Archival Documentary Heritage Institutions of Botswana.” African Journal of Library Archives and Information Science 33 (2): 245–57. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajlais.v33i2.9
Mayernik, Matthew S., and Keith E. Maull. 2017. “Assessing the Uptake of Persistent Identifiers by Research Infrastructure Users.” PLOS ONE 12 (4): e0175418. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175418
McCracken, Krista, and Skylee-Storm Hogan. 2021. “Community First: Indigenous Community-Based Archival Provenance.” Across the Disciplines 18 (1–2): 22–32. https://doi.org/10.37514/atd-j.2021.18.1-2.03
McDonald, John. 1989. “Records Management and Data Management: Closing the Gap.” Records Management Journal 1 (1): 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb027016
McDonald, John. 2010. “Records Management and Data Management: Closing the Gap.” Records Management Journal 20 (1): 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/09565691011039825
McKemmish, Sue, Glenda Acland, and Barbara Reed. 1999. “Towards a Framework for Standardising Recordkeeping Metadata: The Australian Recordkeeping Metadata Schema.” Records Management Journal 9 (3): 173–98. https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000007249
McLeod, Julie, and Catherine E. Hare. 2003. “Records Management.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203403914-14
McLeod, Julie, and Catherine Hare. 2012a. “Challenges of the Dynamic e-Environment for Records Management.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203403570-4
McLeod, Julie, and Catherine Hare. 2012b. “Scheduling Records for Retention.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203403570-8
McWilliam, Andrew, and Chris J. Shepherd. 2022. “Chapter 9. Reading against the Grain: Ethnography, Commercial Agriculture, and the Colonial Archive of East Timor.” In Crossing Histories and Ethnographies. Berghahn Books. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781789202724-012
Meadows, Alice, Laurel L. Haak, and Josh Brown. 2019. “Persistent Identifiers: The Building Blocks of the Research Information Infrastructure.” Insights the UKSG journal 32: 9. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.457
“Medical Records as Legal Evidence: Challenges in Documentation, Disclosure, and Retention in Healthcare Practice.” 2026. International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science. https://doi.org/10.56726/irjmets92957
Mennerat François. 1997. “Standards for Classification Builders According to CEN/TC 251/WG 2.” In Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-882-3-143
Merrill, Kenneth. 2016. “Domains of Control: Governance of and by the Domain Name System.” In The Turn to Infrastructure in Internet Governance. Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137483591_5
Michetti, Giovanni. 2016. “Provenance: An Archival Perspective.” In Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40226-0_3
Michon, Cyrille. 2015. “Is Atheism (the Fact) Good Evidence for Atheism (the Thesis)? On John Schellenberg’s Argument from Ignorance.” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 7 (1): 71–88. https://doi.org/10.24204/ejpr.v7i1.130
Mihwa Lee. 2012. “A Study on Direction of Authority Control by Surveying the Authority Control in University Libraries.” Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society 43 (3): 5–26. https://doi.org/10.16981/kliss.43.3.201209.5
Mills, James H. 2000. “The Asylum Archive: The Production of Knowledge at the Colonial Asylum.” In Madness, Cannabis and Colonialism. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230286047_2
Min, Jianliang. 2015. “Management System of Personnel Records.” In Advances in Intelligent Systems Research. Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/meici-15.2015.319
Mirsky, Rebecca, and John Schaufelberger. 2014. “Documentation and Recordkeeping.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203808283-9
Mithal, Sonal, and Arul Paul. 2024a. “Locating Inaccuracies, Fallacies, and Biases in the Colonial Archive.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003370635-6
Mithal, Sonal, and Arul Paul. 2024b. “Queering the Colonial Archive.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003370635-5
Mockapetris, P., and K. J. Dunlap. 1988. “Development of the Domain Name System.” In Symposium proceedings on Communications architectures and protocols. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/52324.52338
Mokhtar, Umi Asma’, and Zawiyah Mohammad Yusof. 2017. “Records Management Models.” In Records Classification: Concepts, Principles and Methods. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-102238-2.00004-4
Moline, Mary E., George T. Williams, and Kenneth M. Austin. 1998. “Retention and Disposition of Records.” In Sage eBooks. SAGE Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243320.n11
Mondal, Himel, and Shaikat Mondal. 2023. “Digital Object Identifier: What It Is and Why It Matters?” Indian Journal of Skin Allergy 2: 77–80. https://doi.org/10.25259/ijsa_20_2023
More, Anna. 2020. “The Colonial Latin American Archive.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315107189-21
Morgan, Cliff. 1998. “The DOI (Digital Object Identifier).” Serials: The Journal for the Serials Community 11 (1): 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1629/1147
Moynihan, Donald P., Eric Giannella, Pamela Herd, and Julie Sutherland. 2023. “Matching to Categories: Learning and Compliance Costs in Administrative Processes.” Preprint, . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4318922
Musiani, Francesca. 2016. “Alternative Technologies as Alternative Institutions: The Case of the Domain Name System.” In The Turn to Infrastructure in Internet Governance. Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137483591_4
Musyarri, Fazal Akmal. 2025. “Comprehensive Normative Analysis Concerning Indonesia Domain Name Legal Policy.” Media Iuris 8 (1): 47–72. https://doi.org/10.20473/mi.v8i1.68870
Na, Na. 1957. Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Project Quarterly Progress Report for Period Ending December 31, 1956. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/1232654
Nadal-Ginard, Bernardo, Georgina M. Ellison, and Daniele Torella. 2014. “Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence: Pitfalls of Cre Knock-Ins in the c-Kit Locus.” Circulation Research 115 (4): 415–18. https://doi.org/10.1161/circresaha.114.304676
“Name Authority Considerations.” 2024. In The DEI Metadata Handbook: A Guide to Diverse, Equitable, and Inclusive Description. Iowa State University Digital Press. https://doi.org/10.31274/isudp.2024.153.02
“Name Authority Control.” 2017. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, Fourth Edition. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/e-elis4-120050533
Namhila, Ellen Ndeshi. 2004. “Filling the Gaps in the Archival Record of the Namibian Struggle for Independence.” IFLA Journal 30 (3): 224–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/034003520403000305
Nasrullah, Nasrullah, Teguh Gondomono, Ratna Gunarti, and Suharyanto Suharyanto. 2025. “Mengenal Persistent Identifier URN:NBN: Solusi Identifikasi Sumber Daya Digital Di Perpustakaan Nasional.” Media Pustakawan 32 (3): 230–44. https://doi.org/10.37014/medpus.v32i3.5346
“Navigating Archival Silences through Art.” 2026. Panorama l (g). https://doi.org/10.24926/24716839.20929
Nazaré, Erik André de, Antônio Afonso Pereira Júnior, Cristiane Marina Teixeira Girard, and Carla Daniella Teixeira Girard. 2018. “O Digital Object Identifier (DOI) Em Periódicos Científicos Eletrônicos De Comunicação e Informação.” Pesquisa Brasileira em Ciência da Informação e Biblioteconomia 13 (1). https://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.1981-0695.2018v13n1.39974
Netshakhuma, Nkholedzeni Sidney. 2019. “The Role of Archives and Records Management Legislation after Colonialism in Africa: Case of Southern Africa.” Records Management Journal 29 (1/2): 210–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-09-2018-0024
Ng, Jenny. 2012. “Liberalization, Consumer Protection and Growth: The Tug and Pull Relationship in the Domain Name Registration System.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203111727-9
Nii Owoo, Mama Adobea. 2025. “A Decolonial Southern Reading of Ghana’s National Language Policy Archive.” In AERA 2025. AERA. https://doi.org/10.3102/ip.25.2188491
Niu, Jinfang. 2012. “Appraisal and Custody Electronic Records: Findings from Four National Archives.” Archival Issues 34 (2). https://doi.org/10.31274/archivalissues.10986
Noyes, R., US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and US Air Force. 1961. General Electric Direct-Air-Cycle Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program: Aerothermodynamics (Comprehensive Technical Report). Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/1048135
“Number Portability.” 2003. In Telecommunications Regulation. Institution of Engineering and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1049/pbte050e_ch7
Nunes da Silva, Maria Juliana, and Ivana Denise Parrela. 2022. “The Practices of Archival Appraisal in Two National Archives in North and South America: Canada and Brazil.” Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l’ACSI. https://doi.org/10.29173/cais1237
Okune, Angela, and Leslie Kin Wai Chan. 2023. “Digital Object Identifier.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003290650-26
Oladejo, Babatunde, and Sunčica Hadžidedić. 2021. “Electronic Records Management – a State of the Art Review.” Records Management Journal 31 (1): 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-09-2019-0059
Oladejo, Babatunde Kazeem, and Darra Hofman. 2023. “Records in Social Media: A New (Old) Understanding of Records Management.” Records Management Journal 33 (2/3): 148–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-03-2023-0019
Olson, Hope. 2007. “Cultural Infrastructure: The Story of How Classification Came to Shape Our Lives.” Advances in Classification Research Online 18 (1). https://doi.org/10.7152/acro.v18i1.12871
Olson, Kevin. 2023. “Archival Silence: How Do We Write the History of the Subaltern Who Cannot Speak?” PS: Political Science & Politics 57 (1): 92–94. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096523000525
“ORCID.” 2009. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/e-elis3-120050534
“ORCID: The Challenge Ahead.” 2017. European Science Editing 43 (2). https://doi.org/10.20316/ese.2017.43.004
Orihuela, Luis. 2009. “Peruvian National Registry of Identification and Civil States: A Successful Study in e-Governance.” I-WAYS, Digest of Electronic Commerce Policy and Regulation: Journal of E-Governance (I-Ways changed its name to Journal of E-Governance in 2009. Journal of E-Governance was discontinued in 2013) 32 (2): 99–103. https://doi.org/10.3233/iwa-2009-0175
“OSHA Recordkeeping.” 2006. In Interventions, Controls, and Applications in Occupational Ergonomics. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420003642-8
Overly, Michael R. 2021. “Critical Considerations for Records Management and Retention.” In A Guide to IT Contracting. Auerbach Publications. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003166467-27
Owango, Joy. 2025. “Introducing the Digital Object Container Identifier: A F.A.I.R Multilinear PID Approach for Assigning Bioimages.” TCC Africa. https://doi.org/10.21428/359fb1d2.e3f2bce6
Özdemir, Lâle, and Oğuz İcimsoy. 2021. “Perceived Silence in the Turkish Archives.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003003618-9
Pacheco, Rafael Leite, Luis Eduardo Santos Fontes, Ana Luiza Cabrebra Martimbianco, and Rachel Riera. 2019. “Better Understanding of ‘Don’t Confuse Absence of Evidence with Evidence of Absence’.” Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare 1 (2): 99–102. https://doi.org/10.17267/2675-021xevidence.v1i2.2348
Pan, Weimei. 2017. “The Implementation of Electronic Recordkeeping Systems: An Exploratory Study of Socio-Technical Issues.” Records Management Journal 27 (1): 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-04-2016-0014
Pande, Milind, and Vishal Pawar. 2012. “Mobile Number Portability (MNP): Service Providers Perspective (Pros & Cons).” In Proceedings of the CUBE International Information Technology Conference. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2381716.2381750
Papatheodorou, Yiannis. 2021. “The Return of the Barbarians and the Colonial Order of the Archive.” boundary 2 48 (2): 161–76. https://doi.org/10.1215/01903659-8936705
Park, Yoo-Jin. 2004. “A Study on the Operation and Special Quality of the Records Disposition Schedule.” Journal of Information Management 35 (1): 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1633/jim.2004.35.1.071
Park, Sung-Jin. 2017. “A Study on the Improvement of the Filing Process and Implementing a Retention Period for Criminal Case Records.” Journal of Records Management & Archives Society of Korea 17 (2): 189–205. https://doi.org/10.14404/jksarm.2017.17.2.189
Park, Jae Won, Jin Seop Sin, and Hyoung Seop Shim. 2024. “Developing a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) Registration Management System for Korean Traditional Knowledge Resources.” Asia-pacific Journal of Convergent Research Interchange 10 (1): 39–48. https://doi.org/10.47116/apjcri.2024.01.04
Parvez, Akhtar. 2017. “Records Standardization, Retention Schedule and Weeding out of Documents: A Proposal for Indian Libraries.” Library Herald 55 (1). https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-2469.2017.00002.1
Paskin, Norman. 1999. “The Digital Object Identifier System: Digital Technology Meets Content Management.” Interlending & Document Supply 27 (1): 13–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/02641619910255829
Paskin, Norman. 2005. “Digital Object Identifier (DOI©).” In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, First Update Supplement. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420068030.ch14
Patil, Avanish R. 2024. “Reading the Colonial Archive.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003499794-6
Paul, Prantosh, and K. S. Shivraj. 2014. “Digital Object Identifier: Its Origin, Need and Value – an Overview.” Asian Journal of Information Science and Technology 4 (1): 31–34. https://doi.org/10.51983/ajist-2014.4.1.91
Pavlovska, Е Lena. 2017. “Digital Object Identifier (DOI) – an Important Element in Scientific Communication.” Digital Presentation and Preservation of Cultural and Scientific Heritage 7: 79–86. https://doi.org/10.55630/dipp.2017.7.7
Pawel, Samuel, Rachel Heyard, Charlotte Micheloud, and Leonhard Held. 2024. “Replication of Null Results: Absence of Evidence or Evidence of Absence?” eLife 12: RP92311. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.92311
Pennamon, Tiffany, and Sarah Coates. 2021. “Filling Archival Silences: Reflections on Community Archiving for Social Justice.” SOURCE: The Magazine of the University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries 4 (1). https://doi.org/10.32473/sourceuf.v4i1.129054
Perry, Adele. 2005. “The Colonial Archive on Trial: Possession, Dispossession, and History in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia.” In Archive Stories. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822387046-015
Perry, R., and US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1958. Technical Briefing for Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Office Representatives on November 7 and 8, 1958. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/993074
Pestova, Olga. 2019. “Features of Certain Types of Administrative Records of Internal Affairs Bodies (Historical and Legal Aspects).” Vestnik of the St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia 2019 (2): 79–85. https://doi.org/10.35750/2071-8284-2019-2-79-85
Philip, m. nourbeSe, and Simona Bertacco. 2022. ““Breaking and Entering the Colonial Archive”.” CR: The New Centennial Review 22 (3): 13–35. https://doi.org/10.14321/crnewcentrevi.22.3.0013
“PID Service – an Advanced Persistent Identifier Management Service for the Semantic Web.” 2015. In International Congress on Modelling and Simulation (MODSIM). https://doi.org/10.36334/modsim.2015.c8.golodoniuc
Piggott, Michael. 2012a. “Acknowledging Indigenous Recordkeeping.” In Archives and Societal Provenance. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-84334-712-5.50016-8
Piggott, Michael. 2012b. “Themes in Australian Recordkeeping, 1788–2010.” In Archives and Societal Provenance. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-84334-712-5.50002-8
Pigorsch, Stephanie, and Sinai Rusinek. 2026. “From Archival Silence to Digital Synopsis.” Soziale Arbeit 75 (3): 85–89. https://doi.org/10.5771/0490-1606-2026-3-85
Pires, Erik André de Nazaré, Antônio Afonso Pereira Júnior, Carla Daniella Teixeira Girard, and Cristiane Marina Teixeira Girard. 2017. “O Digital Object Identifier (DOI) Em Periódicos Científicos Eletrônicos De Comunicação e Informação.” RDBCI: Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação 15 (3): 533–49. https://doi.org/10.20396/rdbci.v15i3.8646260
Pires, João Moura, André Vasconcelos, and Jose Luis Borbinha. 2019. “Business Process Support in the Context of Records Management.” In International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.5220/0007354000250035
Pitt, Doug, John Huntley, and Niall Levine. 1996. “Number Portability, Regulation and the Level Playing Field: An Emergent Policy Heterodoxy?” Prometheus 14 (2). https://doi.org/10.1080/08109029608629221
Popovici, Bogdan-Florin. 2015. “Electronic Records Management in Romania: More Electronic-, Less Records-Management.” Atlanti 25 (1): 183–92. https://doi.org/10.33700/2670-451x.25.1.183-192(2015)
Prasad, Srirupa. 2022. “Off the Record: Archive, Ruination and Postcolonial Affects.” In The Routledge History of Emotions in the Modern World. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003023326-30
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft (United States), John Larson, and AEC. 1958b. Reactor, Shield and Performance Data for a Nuclear Turbojet Powerplant. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/12376890
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft (United States), John Larson, and AEC. 1960e. P&WA Nuclear J58 Turbojet Engine Powerplant Characteristics Summaries. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/12377065
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft (United States), J. Larson, and DOE. 1958a. Powerplant Performance for a Supersonic Nuclear Turbojet Powerplant. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/12393299
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft (United States), John Larson, and Erda. 1959a. Advanced Nuclear Turbojet: Afterburning Data. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/12086625
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft (United States), John Larson, and ERDA. 1959b. Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Nuclear JT-11 Turbojet Engine Performance with Advanced Nuclear System. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/12086630
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft (United States), J. Larson, and ERDA. 1960b. Nuclear JT11-20 Turbojet Engine Estimated Performance 1600F NaK Radiator. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/12086919
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft (United States), J. Larson, and ERDA. 1960c. Nuclear JT11D-20 Turbojet Engine Estimated Performance 1800F NaK Radiator. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/12086918
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft (United States), John Larson, and ERDA. 1960d. P&WA Nuclear J58 Turbojet Engine Performance Variation with Radiator Diameter. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/12086798
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft (United States), John Larson, and ERDA. 1960f. Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Nuclear J58 Turbojet Engine Performance of 1800F NaK Radiator Derated to 1600F. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/12086805
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft (United States), B. Schmickrath, and DOE. 1960a. Engineering Proposal for Design and Development Work on a Nuclear Turbojet Propulsion Unit. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/12394047
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft, East Hartford, CT (United States), John Larson, and US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1960. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Nuclear J-8 Turbojet Engine Performance Variation with Radiator Diameter. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/1245463
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft, Middletown, CT (United States), J. Larson, and US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1960. Nuclear JT11D-20 Turbojet Engine: Estimated Performance, 2000F Lithium Radiator. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/12086920
“Price Controls and Numbering Administration: Cartesian-Bureaucratic Issue-Processing Episodes.” 2005. In Telecommunications Regulation. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203984536-17
“Provenance of Archival Materials.” 2009. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/e-elis3-120044509
Puthoff, R. 1970. “Application of Heat Pipes to a Nuclear Aircraft Propulsion System.” In 6th Propulsion Joint Specialist Conference. AIAA 1970-662. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1970-662
Pymer, Sarah. 2025. “Archival Provenance and Hidden Histories: The Case of the Peru and Green Vale Papers.” In Inclusive Heritage. Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-07301-3_10
Qaddoumi, Nor Aldeen E. 2025. “Development of an Electronic Records-Keeping with Enhanced Classification and Organized Retention and Disposal System (E-RECORDS).” AIDE Interdisciplinary Research Journal 11: 270–79. https://doi.org/10.56648/aide-irj.v11i1.184
Raas, Urs. 1999. “Electronic Recordkeeping – More than Electronic Document Management.” Records Management Journal 9 (2): 117–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000007246
Ragni, Andrew. 2020. “Anality in the Colonial Archive.” differences 31 (2): 86–114. https://doi.org/10.1215/10407391-8662188
Rajaram, Prem Kumar, and Zsuzsanna Arendas. 2013. “Exceeding Categories: Law, Bureaucracy and Acts of Citizenship by Asylum Seekers in Hungary.” In Enacting European Citizenship. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524025.011
Rawat, Ramnarayan S. 2016. “Colonial Archive versus Colonial Sociology:: Writing Dalit History.” In Dalit Studies. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.33610726.6
Ray, Angela G. 2023. “Chapter 5. Archival Profusion, Archival Silence, and Analytic Invention: Antebellum Charleston’s African American Debaters.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 112 (3): 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1353/tap.2023.a918769
Rebuglio, Massimo, Filippo Maria Ottaviani, and Alberto De Marco. 2025. “Recordkeeping for Project Management Information System in Public Procurement: An Action Research.” Records Management Journal 36 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-10-2023-0052
“Recordkeeping.” 2000. In Safe Work Practices for Wastewater Treatment Plants. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420032017-8
“Recordkeeping Participants: Legal and Ethical Responsibilities.” 2006. In The archivist’s library. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4714-2_4
“Recordkeeping Regulatory Models in the Web Environment.” 2006. In The archivist’s library. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4714-2_7
“RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.” 1998. In Surviving an OSHA Audit. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781482278750-9
“Recordkeeping Requirements.” 2012. In Construction Hazardous Material Compliance Guide. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-415838-2.00009-x
“The Recordkeeping-Ethics-Law Nexus and Recordkeeping Regulatory Models.” 2006. In The archivist’s library. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4714-2_1
“Records and Recordkeeping.” 2007. In Disease in Wild Animals. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-48978-8_9
“Records Management.” 2016. In Information Security Management Handbook, Volume 6. Auerbach Publications. https://doi.org/10.1201/b11802-30
“Records Management and Records Management Policies.” 2007. In Implementing Electronic Document and Record Management Systems. Auerbach Publications. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780849380600-17
“Records Retention Schedules.” 2009. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/e-elis3-120043549
Reed, Barbara. 1997. “Electronic Records Management in Australia.” Records Management Journal 7 (3): 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb027111
Reed, Barbara. 2008. “Service-Oriented Architectures and Recordkeeping.” Records Management Journal 18 (1): 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/09565690810858488
Reed, Barbara, Gillian Oliver, Frank Upward, and Joanne Evans. 2018. “Multiple Rights in Records: The Role of Recordkeeping Informatics.” In Archival Futures. Facet. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783302192.008
Rees Jones, Sarah. 2024. “1 the Administrative Records of the Archbishops of York, 1304–1405.” In The Church and Northern English Society in the Fourteenth Century. Boydell and Brewer. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781805432111-007
Regidor, MARÍA Paz Carvajal. 2023. “(En)Countering Archival Silences:: Critical Lenses, Relationships, and Informal Archives.” In Unsettling Archival Research. Southern Illinois University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.9669312.12
Reid, Lydia J. E., and C. Jerry Simmons. 2018. “Authority Control at the National Archives and Records Administration.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315877556-6
Remize, Michel. 2014. “La vérité sur le records management.” In Archimag. https://doi.org/10.3917/serda.archi.2014.01.0008
“Retention of Records.” 2000. In Economic Paper. Commonwealth. https://doi.org/10.14217/9781848597242-13-en
Ridgeway, Michel. 2024. “Authority Control on the Geac Bibliographic Processing System.” In Authority Control in the Online Environment. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003575375-9
Roberts, Peter. 2007. “Philatelic Materials in Archival Collections: Their Appraisal, Preservation, and Description.” American Archivist 70 (1): 70–92. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.70.1.w3742751w5344275
Robinson, Kenneth G. 2003. “Cellular Number Portability: Really Such a Big Deal?” Ubiquity 2003 (November): 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1145/962068.962069
Robson, F., and G. Peters. 1972. “Engine Technology for Large Subsonic Nuclear Powered Aircraft.” In 8th Joint Propulsion Specialist Conference. AIAA 1972-1062. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1972-1062
Rolan, Gregory. 2017. “Towards Interoperable Recordkeeping Systems: A Meta-Model for Recordkeeping Metadata.” Records Management Journal 27 (2): 125–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-09-2016-0027
Rolón, Ángel Ricardo. 2019. “The Evidence of Absence Is Not Absence of Evidence.” Revista Virtual de la Sociedad Paraguaya de Medicina Interna 6 (1): 146–48. https://doi.org/10.18004/rvspmi/2312-3893/2019.06(01)146-148
Rom, F. 1970. “Nuclear Power for Surface Effect Vehicle and Aircraft Propulsion.” In 7th Annual Meeting and Technical Display. AIAA 1970-1221. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1970-1221
Ryan, Garry D. 1966. “Disposition of AEF Records of World War I.” Military Affairs 30 (4): 212. https://doi.org/10.2307/1985402
Sadatmoosavi, Ali, Ali Akbar Khasseh, and Oranus Tajedini. 2026. “Link Rot in LIS Literature: A 20-Year Study of Web Citation Decay, Recovery and Preservation Challenges.” Aslib Journal of Information Management: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajim-05-2025-0286
Saepuloh, Dani, Angriyan Kurniawan, and Lydia Desmaniar. 2026. “Systematic Review: Standar Internasional Dalam Pengelolaan Digital Object Identifier (DOI), ORCID, Dan Metadata Jurnal.” Publishing Letters 3 (1): 11–20. https://doi.org/10.48078/publetters.v3i1.67
Saikia, Yasmin. 2004. “Beyond the Archive of Silence: Narratives of Violence of the 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh.” History Workshop Journal 58 (1): 275–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/hwj/58.1.275
Saltzer, Jerome H., and M. Frans Kaashoek. 2009. “The Design of Naming Schemes.” In Principles of Computer System Design. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-374957-4.00012-8
Sánchez-Ramón, Silvia, Alejandra Comins-Boo, María Núñez Beltrán, Áurea García Segovia, and Juana Gil Herrera. 2015. “The Absence of Evidence Is Not the Evidence of Absence.” Human Reproduction 31 (1): 217–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev289
Savoja, Maurizio, and Stefano Vitali. 2018. “Authority Control for Creators in Italy: Theory and Practice.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315877556-7
Sayão, Luís Fernando. 2007. “Interoperabilidade Das Bibliotecas Digitais: o Papel Dos Sistemas De Identificadores Persistentes: URN, PURL, DOI, Handle System, CrossRef e OpenURL.” Transinformação 19 (1): 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-37862007000100006
Schwartz, Howard, US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Allen Dean, and J. Malone. 1950. Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program, Progress Report to July 1, 1950. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/1399771
Scott, Anne, and Helen Thomas. 2018. “The Implementation of ORCID by All Major Research Institutions across New Zealand.” In Collaboration and the Academic Library. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-102084-5.00015-8
Sedgwick, P. 2011. “Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence.” BMJ 342 (may25 2): d3126-d3126. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d3126
Sedgwick, P. 2014. “Understanding Why ‘Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence’.” BMJ 349 (aug01 7): g4751-g4751. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4751
Seol, Moon-won, and Haein Lee. 2016. “Business Records and Information Management as Preparation for e-Discovery Risks.” Journal of Records Management & Archives Society of Korea 16 (4): 7–30. https://doi.org/10.14404/jksarm.2016.16.4.007
Shaw, Devin Zane. 2006. “The Absence of Evidence Is Not the Evidence of Absence: Biopolitics and the State of Exception.” Radical Philosophy Today 4: 123–38. https://doi.org/10.5840/radphiltoday2006425
Sherman, Jihan, Romi Morrison, Lauren Klein, and Daniela Rosner. 2024. “The Power of Absence: Thinking with Archival Theory in Algorithmic Design.” In Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3643834.3660690
Shivers, Jay, and Joseph Halper. 2011. “Oﬃce and Records Management.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203148228-31
Shrader-Frechette, K. S. 1980. “Nuclear Wastes and the Argument from Ignorance.” In Nuclear Power and Public Policy. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-7787-0_4
“Six. the Imperial Archive: Colonial Knowledge and Colonial Rule.” 2002. In Castes of Mind. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400840946-008
Slyomovics, Susan. 2005. “The Argument from Silence: Morocco’s Truth Commission and Women Political Prisoners.” Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies 1 (3): 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1215/15525864-2005-4004
Smith, Andrew B. 2008. “Is Absence of Evidence, Evidence of Absence?: PROBLEMS IN THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF EARLY HERDING SOCIETIES OF SOUTHERN AFRICA.” In The Archaeology of Mobility. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdjrq8t.14
Smith, Kelvin. 2016. “The Records Management Function.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315602998-4
Smoczynski, Marcin. 2024. “From Traditional to Digital Documentation: The Transition Period in Electronic Records Management in Poland.” In Geschichte im mitteleuropäischen Kontext. V&R unipress. https://doi.org/10.14220/9783737017473.181
Snyman, Mmm, and M. Jansen van Rensburg. 1999. “Reengineering Name Authority Control.” Electronic Library 17 (5): 313–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640479910329888
Snyman, M. M. M., and M. Jansen van Rensburg. 2000. “NACO versus ISAN: Prospects for Name Authority Control.” Electronic Library 18 (1): 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470010320470
Snyman, M. M. M., and M. Jansen van Rensburg. 2000. “Revolutionizing Name Authority Control.” In Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on Digital libraries. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/336597.336660
Soares, Ana Luiza Morais. 2024. “Archival Silences and Urban Indigenous History: Approaches to Uncovering Invisible Pasts.” Journal of Anthropological Research 80 (2): 206–21. https://doi.org/10.1086/729734
“Sources of Law Governing the Management of Police Records.” 2019. In Bloomsbury Professional eBooks. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781526507020.chapter-001
Sousa, Nuno Miguel Teixeira. 2026. “The Algorithm of Silence: Artificial Intelligence, Archival Bias and the Ethical Reconstruction of Digital Memory.” Journal of Documentation 82 (2): 233–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-08-2025-0249
Spieker, Sven. 2026. “Brushing the Archive against the Grain: The Politics of Remembrance in Eastern Europe.” Comparative Literature Studies 63 (2): 331–39. https://doi.org/10.5325/complitstudies.63.2.0331
Spink, Amanda, and Maurice Leatherbury. 1994. “Name Authority Files and Humanities Database Searching.” Online and CD-Rom Review 18 (3): 143–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024487
Star, Susan Leigh. 2010. “Residual Categories: Silence, Absence and Being an Other.” Zeitschrift für Medien- und Kulturforschung 1 (1): 201–19. https://doi.org/10.28937/zmk-1-1_14
Stoler, Ann Laura. 2002. “Colonial Archives and the Arts of Governance: On the Content in the Form.” In Refiguring the Archive. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0570-8_7
Stuart, Katharine Jane, and David Bromage. 2010. “Current State of Play: Records Management and the Cloud.” Records Management Journal 20 (2). https://doi.org/10.1108/95656981080001364
Suderman, Jim. 2006. “An Accountability Framework for Archival Appraisal.” ESARBICA Journal Journal of the Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Branch of the International Council on Archives 23 (1). https://doi.org/10.4314/esarjo.v23i1.30964
“Sustainable Electronic Court Records Risk Management: Conceptions and Development of Framework.” 2015. International Journal of Business and Administrative Studies 1 (1). https://doi.org/10.20469/ijbas.10007
Sutherland, Ewan. 2007. “Mobile Number Portability.” info 9 (4): 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636690710762101
Svärd, Proscovia. 2017a. “Differences and Similarities between Enterprise Content Management and Records Management.” In Enterprise Content Management, Records Management and Information Culture Amidst e-Government Development. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-100874-4.00005-3
Svärd, Proscovia. 2017b. “Records Management.” In Enterprise Content Management, Records Management and Information Culture Amidst e-Government Development. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-100874-4.00002-8
Svärd, Proscovia. 2017c. “Two Principles Governing the Management of Records.” In Enterprise Content Management, Records Management and Information Culture Amidst e-Government Development. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-100874-4.00004-1
Sweeney, Shelley. 2008. “The Ambiguous Origins of the Archival Principle of “Provenance”.” Libraries & the Cultural Record 43 (2): 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1353/lac.0.0017
Szikszai, Maria. 2026. “Practices of Silence: Self-Documentation and Narrative Limits in a Romanian Catholic Priest’s Twentieth-Century Archive.” Swedish Journal of Romanian Studies 9 (2): 127–41. https://doi.org/10.35824/sjrs.v9i2.28641
Tali, Margaret. 2017. “Archival Absence.” In Routledge eBooks. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315114118-6
Tanimu, Hussaina, Babangida Umar Dangani, and Amina O. Jimoh. 2016. “Big Bucket Records Retention Theory as a Framework for Understanding Record Retention in Non-Profit Organization.” IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science 21 (08): 33–38. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2108063338
Taoua, Phyllis. 2003. “The Anti-Colonial Archive: France and Africa’s Unfinished Business.” SubStance 32 (3): 146. https://doi.org/10.2307/3685533
Taylor, Arlene G. 2024. “Research and Theoretical Considerations in Authority Control.” In Authority Control in the Online Environment. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003575375-3
Tebepah, Ebinimi. 2026. “Mobile Number Portability in Nigeria: Understanding the Trajectory of Its Transformative Potential.” Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy 14 (2): 122–38. https://doi.org/10.18080/jtde.v14n2.1455
Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A., Bo Yang, and Michał Choraś. 2025. “Open Researcher and Contributor IDs (ORCIDs) with the Name ‘ORCID’: Risk to the Integrity of the ORCID Registry.” Journal of Information Science: 01655515251362406. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515251362406
Testal, Cristina García. 2001. “Digital Object Identifier.” El Profesional de la Informacion 10 (7–8): 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1076/epri.10.7.26.9043
Thibodeau, Kenneth. 2016. “Research Issues in Archival Provenance.” In Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40226-0_4
Thompson, Kelly J. 2016. “More than a Name: A Content Analysis of Name Authority Records for Authors Who Self-Identify as Trans.” Library Resources & Technical Services 60 (3): 140–55. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.60n3.140
Thompson, Cheryl. 2019. “BLACK CANADA AND WHY THE ARCHIVAL LOGIC OF MEMORY NEEDS REFORM.” Les ateliers de l’éthique 14 (2): 76. https://doi.org/10.7202/1071133ar
Thompson, Henry S., and Jian Tong. 2018. “Can Common Crawl Reliably Track Persistent Identifier (PID) Use over Time.” In Companion of the The Web Conference 2018 on The Web Conference 2018 - WWW ‘18. ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3184558.3191636
Thornborow, Philip. 2007. “Non-Conformist Records Management in Great Britain: A Review.” Records Management Journal 17 (3): 169–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/09565690710833071
Thornton, G., US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), US Air Force, and A. Rothstein. 1962. General Electric Direct-Air-Cycle Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program: Program Summary and References (Comprehensive Technical Report). Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/1048124
“THREE Archival Memory and the Destruction of the Past.” 1994. In Phantoms of Remembrance. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400843541-007
Tillett, Barbara B. 2024. “Considerations for Authority Control in the Online Environment.” In Authority Control in the Online Environment. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003575375-1
Tournier, Adrien. 2023. “A New Numbering Plan Intended to Develop a Telephone Network.” TMG Journal for Media History 26 (2): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18146/tmg.852
Treacy, William, and Scott Okrent. 2023. “Using U.S. Business Registry Data to Corroborate Corporate Identity: Case Study of the Legal Entity Identifier.” Finance and Economics Discussion Series, no. 2023–011: 1–55. https://doi.org/10.17016/feds.2023.011
Turnbull, R. W., G. E. Hams, and W. J. B. Pollock. 2010. “The National Telephone Plan: Numbering [1959].” Telecommunications Journal of Australia 60 (3): 37.1-37.4. https://doi.org/10.2104/tja10037
U.S. Department of Defense. 2004. Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles. DoD 4120.15-L. U.S. Department of Defense. https://everyspec.com/DoD/DoD-PUBLICATIONS/DOD_4120–15-L_5753/
U.S. Department of the Air Force and U.S. Department of the Navy. 1994. Designating and Naming Defense Military Aerospace Vehicles. Joint Instruction 16-401; NAVAIRINST 8800.3A. U.S. Department of the Air Force. https://irp.fas.org/doddir/usaf/16-401.htm
Uchida, Hisako. 1999. “The Digital Object Identifier (DOI).” Journal of Information Processing and Management 42 (1): 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1241/johokanri.42.32
Uhl, Bodo. 2001. “The Significance of the Principle of Provenance for Archival Science and Historical Research.” Archivalische Zeitschrift 84 (1): 91–122. https://doi.org/10.7788/az.2001.84.1.91
Upward, Frank. 2000. “Modelling the Continuum as Paradigm Shift in Recordkeeping and Archiving Processes, and beyond Ö a Personal Reflection.” Records Management Journal 10 (3): 115–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000007259
Upward, Frank, Barbara Reed, Gillian Oliver, and Joanne Evans. 2013. “Recordkeeping Informatics: Re-Figuring a Discipline in Crisis with a Single Minded Approach.” Records Management Journal 23 (1): 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1108/09565691311325013
Urbec, Karen. 2023. “Exploring Archival Silences: A 1922 Estate Manager’s Diary Offers a New Voice from the Archives at Vizcaya Museum and Gardens.” Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals 19 (4): 583–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/15501906231189210
Van de Sompel, Herbert, Robert Sanderson, Harihar Shankar, and Martin Klein. 2014. “Persistent Identifiers for Scholarly Assets and the Web: The Need for an Unambiguous Mapping.” International Journal of Digital Curation 9 (1): 331–42. https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v9i1.320
Van Pulis, Noelle. 2006. ““First Time Use” (FTU) Name Headings, Authority Control, and NACO.” Library Management 27 (8): 562–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/01435120610686737
Vasile, Aurélia, Séverine Guillaume, Mourad Aouini, and Alexis Michaud. 2020. “Le Digital Object Identifier, une impérieuse nécessité ? L’exemple de l’attribution de DOI à la Collection Pangloss, archive ouverte de langues en danger.” Preprint, HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe). https://doi.org/10.3917/i2d.202.0155
Vasseur, Édouard. 2020. “French Archivists, the Management of Records and Records Management since the Nineteenth Century: Are French Recordkeeping Tradition and Practice Incompatible with Records Management?” Archives and Manuscripts 49 (1–2): 107–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/01576895.2020.1828108
Vicente, Filipa Lowndes. 2018. “Black Women’s Bodies in the Portuguese Colonial Visual Archive (1900-1975).” Portuguese Literary and Cultural Studies: 16–67. https://doi.org/10.62791/sfgt5h76
Viegas, Catarina, André Vasconcelos, Jose Luis Borbinha, and Zaida Chora. 2019. “Records Management Support in the Interoperability Framework for the Portuguese Public Administration.” In International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.5220/0007673300840094
Vinzent, Markus. 2021. “The Argument from Silence in Religio-Historical Research.” Religion in the Roman Empire 7 (3): 430–56. https://doi.org/10.1628/rre-2021-0027
Voli, Stefania, and Ludovico Virtù. 2023. “Collective Memory and Trans History in the Italian Context: Archival Practices and the Creation of the First Trans Archive in Italy.” Memory Studies 16 (1): 113–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/17506980221141994
Wallace, David. 1993. “Archivists, Recordkeeping, and the Declassification of Records: What We Can Learn from Contemporary Histories.” American Archivist 56 (4): 794–814. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.56.4.p3642187l1483433
Wallot, Jean-Pierre. 2006. “Building a Living Memory for the History of Our Present: New Perspectives on Archival Appraisal.” Journal of the Canadian Historical Association 2 (1): 263–82. https://doi.org/10.7202/031037ar
Walters, Tyler. 1996. “Contemporary Archival Appraisal Methods and Preservation Decision-Making.” American Archivist 59 (3): 322–38. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.59.3.w4th5pp861802870
Wang, Jingbo, Nicholas N. J. Car, Ben Evans, Kashif Gohar, Claire Trenham, and Lesley Wyborn. 2017b. “Persistent Identifier Practice for Big Data Management at NCI.” Data Science Journal 16. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-020
Wanigasooriya, Priyanwada. 2023. “Improving Sinhalese Personal Name Authority Control in Sri Lankan Online Public Access Catalogues (OPACs).” In 5 th International Conference on Library and Information Management. University of Kelaniya. https://doi.org/10.64920/iclim23007
Warnner, James W., and Elizabeth W. Brown. 2001. “Automated Name Authority Control.” In Proceedings of the 1st ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/379437.379441
Watson, Margaret. 1994. “Records Management: A User’s Perspective.” Records Management Journal 4 (2): 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb045672
Waugh, Laura, Hannah Tarver, and Mark Edward Phillips. 2014. “Introducing Name Authority into an ETD Collection.” Library Management 35 (4/5): 271–83. https://doi.org/10.1108/lm-08-2013-0074
Weigel, Tobias, Stephan Kindermann, and Michael Lautenschlager. 2014. “Actionable Persistent Identifier Collections.” Data Science Journal 12 (0): 191–206. https://doi.org/10.2481/dsj.12-058
Weinberg, A., and Y-12. 1950. Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Project Quarterly Progress Report for Period Ending February 20, 1950. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). https://doi.org/10.2172/1232662
Welt, Andrew M. 1995. “Recordkeeping.” In Seafood Regulations Compliance Manual. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2077-1_12
Wendelken, Seren. 2023. “Pandemic Recordkeeping – the New Zealand Experience.” Records Management Journal 33 (1): 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-10-2022-0027
Wevers, Melvin, Thomas Smits, and Folgert Karsdorp. 2025. “Quantifying Archival Silences: Phylogenetic Diversity Analysis of Controlled Vocabulary Utilization.” In Anthology of Computers and the Humanities. Association for Computers and the Humanities. https://doi.org/10.63744/h9lnucr9mxmx
“Whose Lessons? Subjects of the Colonial Archive.” 2014. In Visibly Canadian. McGill-Queen’s University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780773596931-005
Wickman, Danielle. 2011. “Recordkeeping Legislation and Its Impacts: The PARBICA Recordkeeping for Good Governance Toolkit.” Comma 2011 (1): 51–59. https://doi.org/10.3828/comma.2011.1.04
Wilczek, Eliot. 2026. “The Struggle of Institutional Recordkeeping: A Case Study Examining American Advisor Records from the Vietnam War.” American Archivist 89 (1): 243–70. https://doi.org/10.17723/2327-9702-89.1.243
Wild, J. 1967. “Nuclear Propulsion for Aircraft.” In 3rd Propulsion Joint Specialist Conference. AIAA 1967-508. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1967-508
Williams, Carol. 2021. “Reading a Regional Colonial Photographic Archive: Residential Schools in Southern Alberta, 1880–1974.” In Adjusting the Lens. University of British Columbia Press. https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774866620-002
Williams, Kelly, Kerin Robinson, and Alexandra Toth. 2006. “Data Quality Maintenance of the Patient Master Index (PMI): A ‘Snap-Shot’ of Public Healthcare Facility PMI Data Quality and Linkage Activities.” Health Information Management Journal 35 (1): 10–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/183335830603500104
Willis, Justin. 1993. “The Creation of Administrative and Landowning Categories.” In Mombasa, the Swahili, and the Making of the Mijikenda. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198203209.003.0006
Wiśniewska-Drewniak, Magdalena. 2022. “Archival Appraisal in Community Archives.” In Geschichte im mitteleuropäischen Kontext. V&R unipress. https://doi.org/10.14220/9783737014724.197
Wojtkiewicz, Katarzyna Barbara. 2025. “The Legal Entity Identifier and Legacy Systems: Harmonisation, Interoperability, and Balance in Digital Governance.” Białostockie Studia Prawnicze 30 (4): 197–209. https://doi.org/10.15290/bsp.2025.30.04.12
Wolf, Alexis. 2018. “Introduction: Reading Silence in the Long Nineteenth-Century Women’s Life Writing Archive.” 19: Interdisciplinary Studies in the Long Nineteenth Century 0 (27). https://doi.org/10.16995/ntn.841
Wu, Yuke. 2011. “4 the Argument from Silence.” In Lexington Books. https://doi.org/10.5771/9780739167427-87
Xia, Cuijuan, and Wei Liu. 2018. “Name Authority Control in Digital Humanities: Building a Name Authority Database of Shanghai Library.” International Journal of Librarianship 3 (1): 21. https://doi.org/10.23974/ijol.2018.vol3.1.68
Xie, Sherry Li. 2015. “Co-Design of Information Systems with Digital Records Management: A Proposal for Research.” In International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.5220/0005617202220228
Xie, Sherry Li. 2016. “Retention in “the Right to Be Forgotten” Scenario: A Records Management Examination.” Records Management Journal 26 (3): 279–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-11-2015-0038
Xu, Weijia, Maria Esteva, and Suyog Jain Dott. 2010. “Visualization for Archival Appraisal of Large Digital Collections.” Archiving Conference 7 (1): 157–62. https://doi.org/10.2352/issn.2168-3204.2010.7.1.art00029
Yasmina, Marouf. 2025. “Between Algeria And France:, A New Reading Of Colonial Sahara Archive.” مجلة علوم الإنسان والمجتمع: 777. https://doi.org/10.37136/2000-014-002-032
Yatskiv, T. M., and UKRINFORMNAUKA”. 2016. “The Digital Object Identifier (DOI) for Publications: The Principles and Opportunities of the Crossref Agency Database’ Work.” In Science Ukraine in the Global Information Space. Publishing House “Akademperiodyka” of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. https://doi.org/10.15407/akademperiodyka.321.073
“Your Name Is Not Good Enough: Introducing the ORCID Researcher Identifier at Imperial College London.” 2015. Insights the UKSG journal 28 (3): 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.268
Yusof, Zawiyah M., and Robert W. Chell. 1999. “The Eluding Definitions of Records and Records Management: Is a Universally Acceptable Definition Possible? Part 2: Defining Records Management.” Records Management Journal 9 (1): 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000007240
Zarefsky, David. 2014. “Terrorism and the Argument from Ignorance.” In Argumentation Library. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05485-8_13
Zeman, Andreas. 2023. “Wiriyamu and the Colonial Archive: Reading It against the Grain? Along the Grain? Read It at All!” History in Africa 50: 206–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/hia.2023.2
Zhang, Jane. 2014. “Recordkeeping in Book Form: The Legacy of American Colonial Recordkeeping.” Information & Culture 49 (4): 469–91. https://doi.org/10.1353/lac.2014.0018
Zherebchuk, Sofiia. 2024. “The ORCID National Consortium: Ukrainian Use Case.” In IInd International Conference “Open Science and Innovation in Ukraine 2023”. BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBLISHERS. https://doi.org/10.2174/9789815256956124010038
Zimmerman, Michael J. 2022. “The Argument from Ignorance.” In Ignorance and Moral Responsibility. Oxford University PressOxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192859570.003.0001
Zinner Henriksen, Helle, and Kim Viborg Andersen. 2008. “Electronic Records Management Systems Implementation in the Pakistani Local Government.” Records Management Journal 18 (1): 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/09565690810858505
Марушко, Р. В. 2016. “International Identifier ORCID and Its Role in the Global Scholarly Communication.” Reproductive Endocrinology 0 (27): 111. https://doi.org/10.18370/2309-4117.2016.27.111-114
Рамазанова, Т.Ф. 2025. “Types of Evidence in Inheritance Cases in the Absence of Civil Status Records (Based on Examples from Judicial Practice).” In XIV Международная научно-практическая конференция «Актуальные вопросы науки и образования». Crossref. https://doi.org/10.26118/5699.2025.55.37.023
إِیمان عزیز خضر and عمار عبداللطیف زین العابدین. 2022. “المعرف الرقمی للوصول إِلى المعلومات (Digital Object Identifier) DOI: دراسة فی ماهیته ومکوناته وفوائده للباحثین والدوریات.” اداب الرافدین 52 (90.1): 951–84. https://doi.org/10.33899/radab.2022.176253
عبد الحمید, أحمد شعبان أحمد. 2022. “‘المعرف المفتوح للباحثین والمساهمین (ORCID): دراسة تحلیلیة لواقع استخدامه من جانب أعضاء هیئة التدریس بأقسام المكتبات والمعلومات’ ‘ Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID): Analytical study of the reality of its use by faculty members in library and information departments.” مجلة کلیة الآداب و العلوم الإنسانیة جامعة قناة السویس 5 (42): 173–211. https://doi.org/10.21608/jfhsc.2022.267986
서울대 철학과 교수 and Sang-Jin Kang. 2019. “Calling a Stag a Horse, an Argument from Silence about the Truth-Value of a Sentence in Minglitan.” Research Journal of Catholic Church History 16: 351–79. https://doi.org/10.35135/casky.2019.16.351

Secondary Sources

Jenkins, Dennis R., Tony Landis, and Jay Miller. 2003. American X-Vehicles: An Inventory X-1 to X-50 Centennial of Flight Edition. NASA. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20030067480

Commercial Sources

Bernier, Robert. 2025. “The World Wasn’t Ready for Nuclear-Powered Bombers: The Dangers of Powering Military Aircraft with Nuclear Energy.” Air & Space Quarterly, March 20. https://airandspace.si.edu/air-and-space-quarterly/issue-14/nuclear-bomber
Pike, John. n.d. “X-39.” FAS Military Analysis Network, Military Aircraft. Accessed October 24, 2026. https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ac/x-39.htm

General Sources

“US Air Force Cuts Fixed Wing FATE Demonstrator Plans.” 1997. Flight International, December 17. https://www.flightglobal.com/us-air-force-cuts-fixed-wing-fate-demonstrator-plans/18776.article

Tertiary Sources

“1962 United States Tri-Service Aircraft Designation System.” 2026. Wikipedia. Last modified July 14, at 18:40 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1962_United_States_Tri-Service_aircraft_designation_system&oldid=1364134610
“Aeronautical Systems Center.” 2026. Wikipedia. Last modified May 14, at 02:09 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aeronautical_Systems_Center&oldid=1354060294
“Air Force Research Laboratory.” 2026. Wikipedia. Last modified August 11, at 10:22 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_Force_Research_Laboratory&oldid=1368835347
“Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion.” 2026. Wikipedia. Last modified July 29, at 15:53 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion&oldid=1366693665
“Boeing Phantom Works.” 2026. Wikipedia. Last modified June 15, at 14:03 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_Phantom_Works&oldid=1359476271
“Boeing X-40.” 2025. Wikipedia. Last modified August 3, at 16:56 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_X-40&oldid=1304047722
“Boeing X-45.” 2026. Wikipedia. Last modified May 22, at 03:22 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_X-45&oldid=1355484000
“Boeing X-53 Active Aeroelastic Wing.” 2026. Wikipedia. Last modified May 15, at 01:16 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_X-53_Active_Aeroelastic_Wing&oldid=1354217149
“DARPA.” 2026. Wikipedia. Last modified August 12, at 09:17 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DARPA&oldid=1369008504
“Defense Technical Information Center.” 2026. Wikipedia. Last modified August 8, at 17:33 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defense_Technical_Information_Center&oldid=1368369852
“Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements.” 2026. Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, at 23:11 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Future_Aircraft_Technology_Enhancements&oldid=1366042278
“General Electric J47.” 2026. Wikipedia. Last modified June 30, at 19:26 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Electric_J47&oldid=1361901178
Parsch, Andreas. 2000. “Allocation of Official Aerospace Vehicle MDS Designations.” Designation-Systems.Net. https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/mdsallocation.html
Parsch, Andreas. 2002. ““Missing” USAF/DOD Aircraft Designations.” Designation-Systems.Net. https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/missing-mds.html
Parsch, Andreas. 2005. “Boeing X-37 / X-40.” Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/x-37.html
U.S. Department of the Air Force, U.S. Department of the Army, and U.S. Department of the Navy. 2005. Designating and Naming Defense Military Aerospace Vehicles. AFI 16-401(I), AR 70-50, NAVAIRINST 13100.16. U.S. Department of the Air Force. https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/afi16-401(i).pdf
U.S. Department of the Air Force, U.S. Department of the Army, and U.S. Department of the Navy. 2020. Designating and Naming Defense Military Aerospace Vehicles. DAFI 16-401, AR 70-50, NAVAIRINST 13100.16. U.S. Department of the Air Force. https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/afi16-401.pdf
“United States Department of Defense Aerospace Vehicle Designation.” 2025. Wikipedia. Last modified December 28, at 09:20 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Department_of_Defense_aerospace_vehicle_designation&oldid=1329864644
“Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle.” 2026. Wikipedia. Last modified August 13, at 14:42 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unmanned_combat_aerial_vehicle&oldid=1369210617
“Wright Laboratory.” 2025. Wikipedia. Last modified March 31, at 08:24 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wright_Laboratory&oldid=1283245221
“X39.” 2016. Wikipedia. Last modified January 10, at 21:56 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X39&oldid=699196916

Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Framing and the Research Aircraft Model.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 6. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/06/x_planes_framing.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Bell X-1.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 7. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/07/x_planes_bell_x1.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Bell X-2.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 8. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/08/x_planes_bell_x2.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Douglas X-3 Stiletto.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 9. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/09/x_planes_douglas_x3.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Northrop X-4 Bantam.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 10. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/10/x_planes_northrop_x4.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Bell X-5.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 11. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/11/x_planes_bell_x5.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Convair X-6.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 12. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/12/x_planes_convair_x6.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Lockheed X-7.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 13. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/13/x_planes_lockheed_x7.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Aerojet X-8 Aerobee.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 14. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/14/x_planes_aerojet_x8.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Bell X-9 Shrike.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 15. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/15/x_planes_bell_x9.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: North American X-10.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 16. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/16/x_planes_north_american_x10.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Convair X-11.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 17. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/17/x_planes_convair_x11.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Convair X-12.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 18. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/18/x_planes_convair_x12.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Ryan X-13 Vertijet.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 19. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/19/x_planes_ryan_x13.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Bell X-14.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 20. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/20/x_planes_bell_x14.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: North American X-15.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 21. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/21/x_planes_north_american_x15.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Bell X-16.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 22. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/22/x_planes_bell_x16.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Lockheed X-17.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 23. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/23/x_planes_lockheed_x17.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Hiller X-18.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 24. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/24/x_planes_hiller_x18.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Curtiss-Wright X-19.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 25. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/25/x_planes_curtiss_wright_x19.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 26. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/26/x_planes_boeing_x20.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Northrop X-21.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 27. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/27/x_planes_northrop_x21.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Bell X-22.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 28. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/28/x_planes_bell_x22.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Martin Marietta X-23 PRIME and a Contested Assignment.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 29. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/29/x_planes_martin_marietta_x23.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Martin Marietta X-24.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 30. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/30/x_planes_martin_marietta_x24.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Bensen X-25.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, October 31. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/10/31/x_planes_bensen_x25.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Schweizer X-26 Frigate.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 1. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/01/x_planes_schweizer_x26.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Lockheed X-27.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 2. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/02/x_planes_lockheed_x27.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Osprey X-28 Sea Skimmer.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 3. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/03/x_planes_osprey_x28.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Grumman X-29.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 4. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/04/x_planes_grumman_x29.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Rockwell X-30 and the National Aero-Space Plane.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 5. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/05/x_planes_rockwell_x30.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Rockwell-MBB X-31.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 6. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/06/x_planes_rockwell_mbb_x31.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Boeing X-32.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 7. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/07/x_planes_boeing_x32.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Lockheed Martin X-33.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 8. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/08/x_planes_lockheed_martin_x33.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Orbital Sciences X-34.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 9. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/09/x_planes_orbital_sciences_x34.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Lockheed Martin X-35.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 10. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/10/x_planes_lockheed_martin_x35.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: McDonnell Douglas X-36.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 11. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/11/x_planes_mcdonnell_douglas_x36.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Boeing X-37.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 12. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/12/x_planes_boeing_x37.html
Sechter, Brendan. 2025. “X-Planes: Scaled Composites X-38.” Brendan A R Sechter’s Development Blog, November 13. https://sgeos.github.io/aerospace/history/engineering/2025/11/13/x_planes_scaled_composites_x38.html

Referenced by

X-Planes: Synthesis and What the Designation Became 2025-12-16
X-Planes: Bell Textron X-76 SPRINT 2025-12-15
X-Planes: X-69 through X-75, the Leapfrogged Block 2025-12-14
X-Planes: General Atomics X-68 LongShot 2025-12-13
X-Planes: X-67, the Slot Taken by XQ-67A 2025-12-12
X-Planes: Boeing X-66 2025-12-11
X-Planes: Aurora Flight Sciences X-65 CRANE 2025-12-10
X-Planes: Invocon X-64 2025-12-09
X-Planes: ABL Space Systems X-63 2025-12-08
X-Planes: Lockheed Martin X-62 VISTA 2025-12-07
X-Planes: Dynetics X-61 Gremlins 2025-12-06
X-Planes: Generation Orbit X-60 2025-12-05
X-Planes: Lockheed Martin X-59 Quesst 2025-12-04
X-Planes: X-58, the Slot Taken by XQ-58 2025-12-03
X-Planes: ESAero X-57 Maxwell 2025-12-02
X-Planes: Lockheed Martin X-56 2025-12-01
X-Planes: Lockheed Martin X-55 ACCA 2025-11-30
X-Planes: Gulfstream X-54 2025-11-29
X-Planes: Boeing X-53 Active Aeroelastic Wing 2025-11-28
X-Planes: X-52, the Designation Refused 2025-11-27
X-Planes: Boeing X-51 Waverider 2025-11-26
X-Planes: Boeing X-50 Dragonfly 2025-11-25
X-Planes: Piasecki X-49 SpeedHawk 2025-11-24
X-Planes: Boeing X-48 2025-11-23
X-Planes: Northrop Grumman X-47 2025-11-22
X-Planes: Boeing X-46 2025-11-21
X-Planes: Boeing X-45 2025-11-20
X-Planes: X-44, One Designation and Two Aircraft 2025-11-19
X-Planes: Micro-Craft X-43 Hyper-X 2025-11-18
X-Planes: Orbital Sciences X-42 2025-11-17
X-Planes: X-41 Common Aero Vehicle 2025-11-16
X-Planes: Boeing X-40 2025-11-15

The Research Question

Programme Origin

Why the Designation Was Never Assigned

Sizing From First Principles

Dependent Systems

The Flight Test Record

Comparison With Ground Prediction

What the Data Changed

The Reservation Had No Standing in the Instruction

The System Provided for Reserving Names and Not Numbers

The Numbering Has a Binding Constraint and It Can Be Written Down

The Gap Is Permanent Because a Second Document Was Also Missing

The Designator Escaped the System That Never Issued It

The Same String Names an Engine That Ran

The Contemporary Literature

Archival Silence and the Record That Was Never Made

The Argument From Silence, as Method and as Fallacy

Classification Systems as Infrastructure

Identifier Assignment, Persistence and Reuse

Administering a Finite Number Space

Recordkeeping, Retention and the Administrative Trace

Maintaining a Register Over Decades

Military Designation and Nomenclature Practice

Recordkeeping, retention and provenance

Archival silence and the colonial archive

Persistent identifiers and link rot

Authority control and registers of names

Numbering plans, number portability, domain names and address space

The argument from silence and absence of evidence

Archival appraisal and selection

Nuclear propulsion of aircraft

Classification and administrative categories

Military designation and nomenclature systems

The Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements programme

Where the Framing Breaks Down

The Source Base

The Definition of Primary

Thin Subjects

What the Survey Admits

Epistemic State

Historical Fact

Verified Against the Primary List

Analysis

Inference

What the Record Does Not Settle

Out of Scope

Conclusion

Equations

Notation

References

Primary Sources, Peer-Reviewed

Primary Sources, Non-Peer-Reviewed

Secondary Sources

Commercial Sources

General Sources

Tertiary Sources

Related Posts

Related posts

Referenced by