Cite inaccessible original sources

[samm82]

Secondary sources to cite

• ISO/IEC 10746-2:2009 (unable to access; email sent to McSCert)
• Myers, 1976 (physical book "Software Reliability", unable to find on ProQuest)

The Context

ISO/IEC and IEEE (2017, p. 434)'s definition of "stability" is taken from ISO/IEC (2009):

There is an online preview of this standard (as there often is for ISO/IEC-only standards), but this does not contain any information on "stability". Searching on SEVOCAB (which I keep forgetting exists 😅) gives the same definition, citing ISO/IEC (2009), but I'm not sure if this definition is from them or is taken (along with the citation) from ISO/IEC and IEEE (2017, p. 434) (the link is also broken 🙃):

My Question

Would it be alright to cite this original source based on these results even if I haven't read it in full to verify it? I can only find standards-organization-based logins (i.e., no McMaster login) and I'm not spending $230 CAD to verify a single definition, so would adding a footnote explaining this be a good compromise between citing the original source while not being able to verify it, or could I just omit any mention of the original source?

A similar issue came up with Hetzel (1988) which is a physical book I couldn't find on ProQuest.

Update

"The IEEE style does not allow for the use of secondary citations" and "if the original source cannot be located, it should not be cited", which I verified with multiple sources.

[JacquesCarette]

McSCert doesn't have a copy of ISO/IEC 10746? They did shell out quite a lot of $ for many of them.

A footnote would be fine.

[samm82]

How would I see if McSCert has a copy? I looked on their website and didn't see anything obvious about documents they have access to, and looked on ProQuest just in case, to no avail.

Unless I missed something obvious, I'll just go the footnote route.

[smiths]

Maybe you could ask a member of the McScert team @samm82? Maybe Vera would know?

There are guidelines you can follow for citing secondary sources. You want to use the phrase, "as cited in."

[samm82]

I was so caught up in finding the original source that I forgot about citing secondary sources; I don't know if that is strictly adherent to IEEE guidelines (will have to double-check) but agree that it's definitely better than a footnote! Regardless, I send an email to Vera so I'll return to this issue later.