Return to Question

I have read that references in a scientific research should be at least 2-3 years old, since such fields move too fast, and at least 10 years for arts or related fields:

A good rule of thumb is to use sources published in the past 10 years for research in the arts, humanities, literature, history, etc.

For faster-paced fields, sources published in the past 2-3 years is a good benchmark since these sources are more current and reflect the newest discoveries, theories, processes, or best practices.

However, I believe that's subjective, so how old is it for a reference to be "too old" to cite?

I have read that references in scientific papers should be no more than 2-3 years old, since such fields move fast, and no more than 10 years for arts or related fields:

A good rule of thumb is to use sources published in the past 10 years for research in the arts, humanities, literature, history, etc.

For faster-paced fields, sources published in the past 2-3 years is a good benchmark since these sources are more current and reflect the newest discoveries, theories, processes, or best practices.

However, I believe that's subjective, so how old is it for a reference to be "too old" to cite?

I have read that references in a scientific research should be at least 2-3 years old, since such fields move too fast, and at least 10 years for arts or related fields [ http://libanswers.snhu.edu/faq/215024 ], however, I believe that's subjective, so how old is it for a reference to be "too old" to cite?

I have read that references in a scientific research should be at least 2-3 years old, since such fields move too fast, and at least 10 years for arts or related fields:

A good rule of thumb is to use sources published in the past 10 years for research in the arts, humanities, literature, history, etc.

For faster-paced fields, sources published in the past 2-3 years is a good benchmark since these sources are more current and reflect the newest discoveries, theories, processes, or best practices.

However, I believe that's subjective, so how old is it for a reference to be "too old" to cite?

I have read that references in a scientific research should be at least 2-3 years old, since such fields move too fast, and at least 10 years for arts or related fields, however, I believe that's subjective, so how old is it for a reference to be "too old" to cite?

I have read that references in a scientific research should be at least 2-3 years old, since such fields move too fast, and at least 10 years for arts or related fields [ http://libanswers.snhu.edu/faq/215024 ], however, I believe that's subjective, so how old is it for a reference to be "too old" to cite?