Take the 2-minute tour ×
Academia Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for academics and those enrolled in higher education. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Recently I submitted my first paper to a philosophy journal and got a rejection. This is of course nothing unusual, but as someone with a STEM background, I was surprised by the reason for the rejection: While there were no complaints regarding contents or correctness, it was felt that the paper failed to cite and engage with the recent literature on the topic.

The latter is indeed true: I did ignore the latest papers in the field and only referenced a handful of "classic" papers from the last century. But I also thought this was okay, as it seemed to me that the recent literature didn't add much to what was already covered by the classic papers, and was in any case not essential to the discussion.

Now, I'm not here to complain about having my paper rejected, or to argue about who's wrong or right. I just would like to know whether the requirement to cite the recent literature is a humanities-specific thing, or whether this is a common requirement in most fields. For instance, I imagine that if I had submitted a math or computer science paper that referenced only a handful of classic and old, but relevant papers, my own paper, if correct and substantial, would have been accepted.

Note: Since people seem to misunderstand me, a bit of extra clarification: I don't have a problem with citing recent literature, if that's what it takes to get a philosophy paper published. I just want to know if this is more or less the same in most fields, including math and CS. In the latter, so I believe, it's less of a big deal to cite the latest papers as long as the submitted paper correctly solves some well-known open problem.

share|improve this question
it seemed to me that the recent literature didn't add much — Then you should have argued in your paper that recent literature on the topic is irrelevant, with citations to the recent literature to back up your argument. –  JeffE Jun 27 at 19:43
One of the most common hallmarks of papers by cranks and kooks is that they don't cite recent work in the field. For example, this happens with anti-relativity kooks who only cite work from 1930 and before. –  Ben Crowell Jun 27 at 22:51

5 Answers 5

up vote 17 down vote accepted

This question seems to be based on a common misconception about the role of citations (see this question for a related issue). Citations aren't just there to list content your work builds on; they're also there to provide the reader with context and motivation.

The reason you should be citing recent work is to help the reader. If you were familiar with various unsuccessful solutions, it's likely that some of them motivated the successful one, even if only by identifying things that couldn't work, and that merits a citation. Even if not, many of your readers are likely to be people who've thought a lot about one or more of those unsuccessful approaches; you're in the best position to explain how your approach differs.

(I'm writing from the perspective of mathematics, by the way.)

share|improve this answer
If you were familiar with various unsuccessful solutions, it's likely that some of them motivated the successful one [...]; Reading this part of your answer, remembered me this question: Article that shows the complete publication history of acceptances and rejections of a successful academic –  Enthusiastic Student Jul 16 at 20:55

Your assumption is wrong: The requirement to cite the recent literature is a valid reason for rejection on many fields as well and is certainly not a humanities thing. Why? You give the answer yourself:

my own paper, if correct and substantial, would have been accepted

But how can the reviewer judge that (the substantial contribution at least) if you do not cite the recent papers? Perhaps what you propose, has already been done before and even in a better way that the one you propose in some recent papers. Science is not rebuilt from scratch every year and reading just a classic textbook is not enough to address the state-of-the-art in any field.

Also, not acknowledging the recent works is not only lazy (since you have not done the necessary "homework" regarding your scientific area) but it can also be intentionally misleading (perhaps you hide the recent papers because you know they are much better than yours). At the very best case, it is just ungrateful on those dealing with the same problem as you, since you seem not to consider their work significant enough for citing them on your paper. If you take into account that those reviewing your papers are also moving around the same problem area as you, by ignoring their work, is a sure way to get your paper rejected.

share|improve this answer
"But how can the reviewer judge that (the substantial contribution at least) if you do not cite the recent papers?" -- By means of logical reasoning? Also, the problem and solution are well-defined, and those familiar with the field know that problem is substantial and that it has not been solved yet. –  python dude Jun 27 at 18:19
@pythondude you just prove my point: ..."mostly of unsuccessful attempts at solving the problem". How would the reviewer know that, if you do not cite those attempts? –  Alexandros Jun 27 at 19:23
I have rejected papers in applied physics journals for not citing recent literature. In those cases, it generally was because the result was not actually new (and in several was actually incorrect). As pointed out by @Alexandros, the proper way would be to summarize at least some recent (failed) attempts, and then establish why your contribution is actually new and novel. If the reviewer can't get a warm fuzzy feeling that you are actually up on the current thinking in the field you will have trouble. –  Jon Custer Jun 27 at 20:22
Getting recent literature costs a lot of money in some fields. Just saying. –  horse hair Jun 27 at 20:39
@pythondude if the recent literature consists of mostly of unsuccessful attempts at solving the problem, then your paper must state that and support it with evidence - citing the 'most successful' attempts and explaining why they're not appropriate. The only thing that 'well-known that it hasn't been solved yet' buys you is that you don't have to prove it, but you still must explicitly state it within the paper. If there's some 2013 paper that (on the first sight) claims to have a good solution as well, then it should be clear from reading your paper if you've taken it into account or not. –  Peteris Jun 28 at 13:31

In applied computer science, not citing recent literature (and in this case, "recent" really means "the last couple of years") correlates very strongly with rejection. Essentially, when I review a paper where all references are old according to the standards of the field, the reason can be either that:

  1. there is newer related work, and the author is not aware of it or wilfully ignores it
  2. there is indeed no recent related work; this is at least an indicator that the problem is either solved or deemed irrelevant by the community
  3. the paper has been written a long time ago and has been rejected at multiple previous attempts at publication
  4. the paper author is just a crank, who believes he has redefined (for instance) the concept of object-oriented programming

Points 1 and 4 warrant rejection on their own. Point 2 and 3 are at least a strong indicator that a paper should be rejected. That being said, I cannot remember ever rejecting a paper only for failing to cite recent literature. In all cases that come to my mind, this was just a minor sidenote and the paper actually got rejected for much more fundamental issues.

share|improve this answer
I'd modify what you say just slightly: points 1 and 4 warrant rejection on their own, and points 2 and 3 are strong indicators that a paper should be rejected. (Admittedly, I'm coming from the perspective of a different field with quite different publishing practices.) –  Mark Meckes Jun 28 at 8:13
@MarkMeckes Agreed. –  xLeitix Jun 28 at 8:30

Citing papers is primarily to provide reference to the source of information gained from sources other than yourself in the study you are writing about. There are some instances where reference is made to works that provide background to the topic, in my field often review papers that summarize knowledge up to a point in time or papers that discusses methods and similar cases that can shorten your own description of some aspect of your manuscript

The main question is not so much if the latest material is cited but rather if the right material has been cited. Most research builds on earlier studies and is located at the cutting edge of knowledge so it seems unlikely that references to new or the latest findings within a subject would not have its place in a paper. That said, I would add that there is often a lack of historical knowledge as well. People (again in my field at least) reference papers from within the last five years for findings that were done half a century or more ago. This lack of knowledge about the origins of ideas can sometimes be problematic since one trusts someone else's interpretation of the original work when referencing new material that builds on the original.

So reference the right material, old as well as new, and be aware what the papers you cite actually say and from where they in turn sourced their information.

share|improve this answer

It's dangerous not to cite works from the present. Most reviewers live in the present and have a "frame of reference" there. Your best shot would have been to hope for a bunch of reviewers who are now at least 45-50 years old, who remember "the good old days" of the past century. Apparently that didn't happen to you.

It's possible that there are some fields where, for whatever reason, the work done before the turn of the century was better than the work that was done after it. In that case, you might have to rely heavily on the pre-turn of the century work to critique the more recent work. But at least cite the recent work.

A paper or idea, even if meritorious that is not "modern" already has one strike against it. The damage is "double" or more, if you haven't considered (or at least appeared to have considered) the recent ideas in the field.

I found this out the hard way with my book "A Modern Approach to Graham and Dodd Investing" (Wiley, 2004), that preached that a "modern" version of the (1930s) ideas of Graham and Dodd would be more useful than the ideas that were then in vogue. But at least I couldn't be accused of "ignoring" them.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.