Scientific referencing

[achursov]

Hello Everyone.

Do you know any cases in your research field when a paper, which was supposed to be referenced in another paper, but did not get a citation? How often do such cases happen?

Edited May 24, 2012 by Phi for All
breaks and editor characters removed

[timo]

It's hard to define what "was supposed to be referenced in another paper" means. If you mean that I (as the author of the not-citing paper) really wanted to refer the respective work but forgot it due to carelessness, then I think the answer is "very seldom". If you interpret it more like the author realizing "well, in hindsight I could have also cited X", then I think we already approach a two-digit percentage - perhaps 50% if you include papers that the author only became aware of after publications. If you mean work that could have been referenced in principle, then we surely talk about almost 100% of the papers published. Actually, it sometimes happens that after publication you get a mail by someone (not a crackpot but a proper university researcher) kindly asking you to also consider a particular related paper of theirs. I've still not met anyone who could make real sense of such mails, though (do they ask to be cited? are they interested in a discussion of the topic? are they just trying to be helpful?).

 

Citing papers and attributing ideas is not an exact thing - I think anyone writing scientific publications will agree with this. There are weird rumors about non-existing papers having hundreds of citations because the authors of some influential paper made a typo in their citations and everyone just copied that citation without looking it up or even reading it. Also, scientific publication is not the only way that people get their ideas across (and also not the best). Scientists talk a lot to other colleagues, and speaking for me I learned much more about current research from a live discussion with visiting scientists, attending talks, and chatting with colleagues met at a conference than I did from reading research papers. This may in some cases lead to the effect that public referencing may not always be what a pure look at published material may indicate.

[achursov]

Your point about better ways of spreading ideas is very good. I completely agree with it.

 

But I was thinking about other aspect of scientific referencing. Funding and tenure track appointments greatly depend on citation index of a researcher. But if his paper is accidentally overlooked, he will not receive their deserved credit. And sending email kindly asking to also consider a particular paper of yours will not really change anything.

[achursov]

It's hard to define what "was supposed to be referenced in another paper" means. If you mean that I (as the author of the not-citing paper) really wanted to refer the respective work but forgot it due to carelessness, then I think the answer is "very seldom". If you interpret it more like the author realizing "well, in hindsight I could have also cited X", then I think we already approach a two-digit percentage - perhaps 50% if you include papers that the author only became aware of after publications. If you mean work that could have been referenced in principle, then we surely talk about almost 100% of the papers published. Actually, it sometimes happens that after publication you get a mail by someone (not a crackpot but a proper university researcher) kindly asking you to also consider a particular related paper of theirs. I've still not met anyone who could make real sense of such mails, though (do they ask to be cited? are they interested in a discussion of the topic? are they just trying to be helpful?).

 

Citing papers and attributing ideas is not an exact thing - I think anyone writing scientific publications will agree with this. There are weird rumors about non-existing papers having hundreds of citations because the authors of some influential paper made a typo in their citations and everyone just copied that citation without looking it up or even reading it. Also, scientific publication is not the only way that people get their ideas across (and also not the best). Scientists talk a lot to other colleagues, and speaking for me I learned much more about current research from a live discussion with visiting scientists, attending talks, and chatting with colleagues met at a conference than I did from reading research papers. This may in some cases lead to the effect that public referencing may not always be what a pure look at published material may indicate.

 

Your point about better ways of spreading ideas is very good. I completely agree with it.

 

But I was thinking about other aspect of scientific referencing. Funding and tenure track appointments greatly depend on citation index of a researcher. But if his paper is accidentally overlooked, he will not receive their deserved credit. And sending email kindly asking to also consider a particular paper of yours will not really change anything.

[ewmon]

One minor point I wish to harp on: It is no longer standard practice to using underlining in citations. It was a compromise when people used typewriters. Proofreaders underline the words they want to appear in italics, and then they write "ital" in the margin next to the words. Typewriters cannot italicize, so the compromise was to simply underline.

 

As to the kinds of references, I suggest:

• Cite for a real reason, and not just to have citations.
  
• Use the most relevant citations.
  
• Use the most recent citations.
  
• Use citations from peer-reviewed publications.
  

(And, just for fun, who would have thought that this paper would be the most highly cited paper in publishing history?!)

Edited May 26, 2012 by ewmon

[ajb]

You ideas and inspiration from many different papers, books and conversations. I try to reference everything that is relevant, however I do not know all the papers published in my field. It is quite easy to miss an old paper that is not online and only to be found in some obscure journal. I am sure I have missed out references that other people would have included if they wrote my papers. To help combat going over old ground and making sure you know the relevant papers etc, one must talk to established experts. That said, no-one knows everything.

 

In my latest paper, I cite someone in retrospect. The work was completed before I was aware of the earlier related work. I simply noted this in the final version and made some remarks along the way. My work was independent of this earlier work and only loosely related, but I felt it important to cite it. That was a judgement call on my part.

 

Actually, it sometimes happens that after publication you get a mail by someone (not a crackpot but a proper university researcher) kindly asking you to also consider a particular related paper of theirs. I've still not met anyone who could make real sense of such mails, though (do they ask to be cited? are they interested in a discussion of the topic? are they just trying to be helpful?).

 

I have had this for preprints on the arXiv. I was once told to look at a paper with similar results, only to find that the paper and my preprint were not that similar. Even referees can suggest such things.

 

Like you I am not sure what to make of such emails. Usually, if the work is close to what I am doing I know the work anyway, even if I have not cited it as it is not completely relevant.

 

Usually I find further references and helpful papers by talking to people via email while the work is in progress. Though you may want to take some care with giving insight to your competitors.

[achursov]

Do you think that a model of scientific referencing proposed by http://www.ScientificCitations.org might be really helpful in restoring missed citations?

[ajb]

Do you think that a model of scientific referencing proposed by http://www.ScientificCitations.org might be really helpful in restoring missed citations?

I do not know. Very specific and important results would get the correct sitations in the first place. But as humans we can easily miss something.

 

One issue that does come up is the citation of arXiv preprints that have actually been published in proper journals.

[achursov]

I do not know. Very specific and important results would get the correct sitations in the first place. But as humans we can easily miss something.

 

One issue that does come up is the citation of arXiv preprints that have actually been published in proper journals.

 

Would you personally be interested in such type of service?

[ajb]

Would you personally be interested in such type of service?

I am not sure what would actualy be gained by it, other than maybe annoying authors!