Our initial analysis of the HBBW footnotes over 50 years reveals clear changes in editorial practices. These changes do not correlate with changes in personnel of the editorial team and exact causes remain uncertain. The prominent use of primary sources suggests a strong emphasis on historical contextualization, aligning with Grafton’s (1999) assertion that such sourcing serves as a key indicator of scholarly professionalism. These primary sources are predominantly presented through editions of original texts, indicating a broader network of interconnected editions and potentially contributing to the establishment of a canon, as noted by Stevens and Williams (2006).