12

I submitted a paper recently and one of the major revisions that they ask for was this: "The references in general are not current."

What does the reviewer mean by this?

Improve this question
6
  • 26
    It likely means you did not cite the reviewers most recent paper(s).
    – StrongBad
    Commented Feb 5, 2015 at 14:55
  • 1
    If you do not know how to find more recent literature, that could be an interesting question on its own (but be sure to specify your field).
    – adam.r
    Commented Feb 5, 2015 at 15:10
  • 1
    Is that sentence correct English usage? I am not a native speaker, but it sounds unusual.
    – Federico Poloni
    Commented Feb 5, 2015 at 15:58
  • 12
    I think it's appropriate to note that @StrongBad is being sarcastic.
    – Cape Code
    Commented Feb 5, 2015 at 17:12
  • 5
    Might be easier to parse with commas: "The references, in general, are not current"
    – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
    Commented Feb 6, 2015 at 3:43

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
43

Your references apparently refer to literature that is too old, and probably superseded by more recent research.

Look for more recent work pertinent to your topic and include it in your paper.

Improve this answer
14

In mathematics, papers are often cited when they are preprints (usually on the arxiv).

If your references cite the preprint version of a paper when it has already appeared in a journal, they are not current.

Improve this answer
1

In the context of "The references in general are not current.", couple of things might contribute

  • authors might not have engaged literature study well enough. At least this is what is apparent to me when I review as a reviewer.
    • At times, it might be an oversight, or
    • it might be carelessness, or
    • author might genuinely not have access to (paywalled) academic literature,
    • in some instances, it's because of poor conceptualisation of the research itself
  • references superseded by recent literature as answered by @Stephan-Kolassa
  • preprints are now published in Journals as answered by @Aru-Ray

However, some reviewers simply scan through the reference list without connecting well with the literature/related work section of the manuscript. This is not well-founded nor ought to be, however in few instances it's a reality.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .