The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
3 Totally rewrote the entire answer, with references and citations this time
source | link

Note thatThere is more controversy on this practice may vary by field, sotopic than I will answer from the perspective of technology (IEEE, ACM styles) and psychology (APA) citation practicesexpected, as these are the fields I am familiar with in practiceso I've done some further digging. The results of this surprised me!


 

Institution, Program, and Journal requirements

You don't cite things because theyThe rules of your neighborhood may differ, so you'll want to follow whatever more specific rules are wheregiven to you learned about something in general (don't cite the journey you were taking), you cite something to show where a claim or piece of information actually comes fromyour program. For example,

ExampleColumbia College demands secondary source citation: McDonald's slogan in 2016 is "I'm lovin' it".

Indebtedness

You must cite any text you read that helped you think about your paper even if you do not reference it directly in the text of your paper.

Citing the journey: My friend told me it was, I googled itHowever, guy on twitter says it is the slogan, I googled it again more specifically, a paper on fast-food marketing mentioned it was on their website (or just said it was without citation), and it says so on the official corporate website McDonalds.com.

Proper academic citation sourceOWL APA style reference gives differing advice: McDonalds.com (primary source)

Work Discussed in a Secondary Source

NOTE: Give the secondary source in the references list; in the text, name the original work, and give a citation for the secondary source. For example, if Seidenberg and McClelland's work is cited in Coltheart et al. and you did not read the original work [emphasis mine], list the Coltheart et al. reference in the References. In the text, use the following citation...

In your case, it's nice that someone mentioned something helpful to you in their introduction section, in exactly the same way that it's niceSo if a professor mentions something helpful to you inmerely were directed to the hallway. But a citationoriginal work, but then attained the original work and read it, there is not for thanking someone or acknowledging someone for helping you find something usefulnecessarily any need to youcite the secondary source - it's for allowing others to findbut the source of claim or supportguide doesn't prohibit it.

In your example caseHowever, it's nice that the physics paper tipped you off toIEEE has a useful source, and so you should thank the library angels for their grace and kindness towards you this day. But then you should try to figure out where that quote actually comes from. If you can't find any other reference to this quotestance as strong as Columbia, you would then cite the paper only because you are saying it might actually be the source of this claim (and so it's apocryphal and there might not be such an ancient source). You could also cite it if you are referring tobut in the paper directly, such asopposite direction! As noted by noting that physicists are also interestedYork University in the topictheir IEEE style guide (and may or may not be hipsters), and such legendspage 5 of ancient importance are widely repeated.the pdf):

Should I use secondary references?

A secondary reference is given when you are referring to a source which you have not read yourself, but have read about in another source, for example referring to Jones’ work that you have read about in Smith. You should avoid using secondary references and locate the original source and reference that.

Citing literature reviews follows the same rulesMurdoch University has an even stronger interpretation: cite it if you refer to the paper directly

• IEEE style does not allow for the use of secondary source.

• Locate the original source of information which is cited in a work which you have read.

• If an original source cannot be located, it should not be cited.


Jeeze, such as noting their literature review explicitly noted the widespread popularity of Aurora borealis among hipsters. Don't bother to cite it simply becauseno wonder there are so many different answers!

So it was helpful to you in tracking downwould seem there cannot be a primary source, or simply helped you get caught up on the state of the field so you knew where to look or what approach to try. We don't document the journey to knowledgeone-size fits all answer - we document the findingsit depends.

At least, this What is the practice I have been taught by professors familiar with APArequired in one field and IEEE/ACM style publications, and appears to be the normis forbidden in human factors and human computer interaction from my own publication and researchanother, and optional in my readings of algorithm researcha third (and apparently even then people differ).

Note that this practice may vary by field, so I will answer from the perspective of technology (IEEE, ACM styles) and psychology (APA) citation practices, as these are the fields I am familiar with in practice.


 

You don't cite things because they are where you learned about something in general (don't cite the journey you were taking), you cite something to show where a claim or piece of information actually comes from.

Example: McDonald's slogan in 2016 is "I'm lovin' it".

Citing the journey: My friend told me it was, I googled it, guy on twitter says it is the slogan, I googled it again more specifically, a paper on fast-food marketing mentioned it was on their website (or just said it was without citation), and it says so on the official corporate website McDonalds.com.

Proper academic citation source: McDonalds.com (primary source)

In your case, it's nice that someone mentioned something helpful to you in their introduction section, in exactly the same way that it's nice if a professor mentions something helpful to you in the hallway. But a citation is not for thanking someone or acknowledging someone for helping you find something useful to you - it's for allowing others to find the source of claim or support.

In your example case, it's nice that the physics paper tipped you off to a useful source, and so you should thank the library angels for their grace and kindness towards you this day. But then you should try to figure out where that quote actually comes from. If you can't find any other reference to this quote, you would then cite the paper only because you are saying it might actually be the source of this claim (and so it's apocryphal and there might not be such an ancient source). You could also cite it if you are referring to the paper directly, such as by noting that physicists are also interested in the topic (and may or may not be hipsters), and such legends of ancient importance are widely repeated.

Citing literature reviews follows the same rules: cite it if you refer to the paper directly, such as noting their literature review explicitly noted the widespread popularity of Aurora borealis among hipsters. Don't bother to cite it simply because it was helpful to you in tracking down a primary source, or simply helped you get caught up on the state of the field so you knew where to look or what approach to try. We don't document the journey to knowledge - we document the findings.

At least, this is the practice I have been taught by professors familiar with APA and IEEE/ACM style publications, and appears to be the norm in human factors and human computer interaction from my own publication and research, and in my readings of algorithm research.

There is more controversy on this topic than I expected, so I've done some further digging. The results of this surprised me!

Institution, Program, and Journal requirements

The rules of your neighborhood may differ, so you'll want to follow whatever more specific rules are given to you in your program. For example, Columbia College demands secondary source citation:

Indebtedness

You must cite any text you read that helped you think about your paper even if you do not reference it directly in the text of your paper.

However, the OWL APA style reference gives differing advice:

Work Discussed in a Secondary Source

NOTE: Give the secondary source in the references list; in the text, name the original work, and give a citation for the secondary source. For example, if Seidenberg and McClelland's work is cited in Coltheart et al. and you did not read the original work [emphasis mine], list the Coltheart et al. reference in the References. In the text, use the following citation...

So if you merely were directed to the original work, but then attained the original work and read it, there is not necessarily any need to cite the secondary source - but the guide doesn't prohibit it.

However, the IEEE has a stance as strong as Columbia, but in the opposite direction! As noted by York University in their IEEE style guide (page 5 of the pdf):

Should I use secondary references?

A secondary reference is given when you are referring to a source which you have not read yourself, but have read about in another source, for example referring to Jones’ work that you have read about in Smith. You should avoid using secondary references and locate the original source and reference that.

Murdoch University has an even stronger interpretation:

• IEEE style does not allow for the use of secondary source.

• Locate the original source of information which is cited in a work which you have read.

• If an original source cannot be located, it should not be cited.


Jeeze, no wonder there are so many different answers!

So it would seem there cannot be a one-size fits all answer - it depends. What is required in one field and style is forbidden in another, and optional in a third (and apparently even then people differ).

2 added 232 characters in body
source | link

Note that this practice may vary by field, so I will answer from the perspective of technology (IEEE, ACM styles) and psychology (APA) citation practices, as these are the fields I am familiar with in practice.


You don't cite things because they are where you learned about something in general (don't cite the journey you were taking), you cite something to show where a claim or piece of information actually comes from.

Example: McDonald's slogan in 2016 is "I'm lovin' it".

Citing the journey: My friend told me it was, I googled it, guy on twitter says it is the slogan, I googled it again more specifically, a paper on fast-food marketing mentioned it was on their website (or just said it was without citation), and it says so on the official corporate website McDonalds.com.

Proper academic citation source: McDonalds.com (primary source)

In your case, it's nice that someone mentioned something helpful to you in their introduction section, in exactly the same way that it's nice if a professor mentions something helpful to you in the hallway. But a citation is not for thanking someone or acknowledging someone for helping you find something useful to you - it's for allowing others to find the source of claim or support.

In your example case, it's nice that the physics paper tipped you off to a useful source, and so you should thank the library angels for their grace and kindness towards you this day. But then you should try to figure out where that quote actually comes from. If you can't find any other reference to this quote, you would then cite the paper only because you are saying it might actually be the source of this claim (and so it's apocryphal and there might not be such an ancient source). You could also cite it if you are referring to the paper directly, such as by noting that physicists are also interested in the topic (and may or may not be hipsters), and such legends of ancient importance are widely repeated.

Citing literature reviews follows the same rules: cite it if you refer to the paper directly, such as noting their literature review explicitly noted the widespread popularity of Aurora borealis among hipsters. Don't bother to cite it simply because it was helpful to you in tracking down a primary source, or simply helped you get caught up on the state of the field so you knew where to look or what approach to try. We don't document the journey to knowledge - we document the findings.

At least, this is the practice I have been taught by professors familiar with APA and IEEE/ACM style publications, and appears to be the norm in human factors and human computer interaction from my own publication and research, and in my readings of algorithm research.

You don't cite things because they are where you learned about something in general (don't cite the journey you were taking), you cite something to show where a claim or piece of information actually comes from.

Example: McDonald's slogan in 2016 is "I'm lovin' it".

Citing the journey: My friend told me it was, I googled it, guy on twitter says it is the slogan, I googled it again more specifically, a paper on fast-food marketing mentioned it was on their website (or just said it was without citation), and it says so on the official corporate website McDonalds.com.

Proper academic citation source: McDonalds.com (primary source)

In your case, it's nice that someone mentioned something helpful to you in their introduction section, in exactly the same way that it's nice if a professor mentions something helpful to you in the hallway. But a citation is not for thanking someone or acknowledging someone for helping you find something useful to you - it's for allowing others to find the source of claim or support.

In your example case, it's nice that the physics paper tipped you off to a useful source, and so you should thank the library angels for their grace and kindness towards you this day. But then you should try to figure out where that quote actually comes from. If you can't find any other reference to this quote, you would then cite the paper only because you are saying it might actually be the source of this claim (and so it's apocryphal and there might not be such an ancient source). You could also cite it if you are referring to the paper directly, such as by noting that physicists are also interested in the topic (and may or may not be hipsters), and such legends of ancient importance are widely repeated.

Citing literature reviews follows the same rules: cite it if you refer to the paper directly, such as noting their literature review explicitly noted the widespread popularity of Aurora borealis among hipsters. Don't bother to cite it simply because it was helpful to you in tracking down a primary source, or simply helped you get caught up on the state of the field so you knew where to look or what approach to try. We don't document the journey to knowledge - we document the findings.

Note that this practice may vary by field, so I will answer from the perspective of technology (IEEE, ACM styles) and psychology (APA) citation practices, as these are the fields I am familiar with in practice.


You don't cite things because they are where you learned about something in general (don't cite the journey you were taking), you cite something to show where a claim or piece of information actually comes from.

Example: McDonald's slogan in 2016 is "I'm lovin' it".

Citing the journey: My friend told me it was, I googled it, guy on twitter says it is the slogan, I googled it again more specifically, a paper on fast-food marketing mentioned it was on their website (or just said it was without citation), and it says so on the official corporate website McDonalds.com.

Proper academic citation source: McDonalds.com (primary source)

In your case, it's nice that someone mentioned something helpful to you in their introduction section, in exactly the same way that it's nice if a professor mentions something helpful to you in the hallway. But a citation is not for thanking someone or acknowledging someone for helping you find something useful to you - it's for allowing others to find the source of claim or support.

In your example case, it's nice that the physics paper tipped you off to a useful source, and so you should thank the library angels for their grace and kindness towards you this day. But then you should try to figure out where that quote actually comes from. If you can't find any other reference to this quote, you would then cite the paper only because you are saying it might actually be the source of this claim (and so it's apocryphal and there might not be such an ancient source). You could also cite it if you are referring to the paper directly, such as by noting that physicists are also interested in the topic (and may or may not be hipsters), and such legends of ancient importance are widely repeated.

Citing literature reviews follows the same rules: cite it if you refer to the paper directly, such as noting their literature review explicitly noted the widespread popularity of Aurora borealis among hipsters. Don't bother to cite it simply because it was helpful to you in tracking down a primary source, or simply helped you get caught up on the state of the field so you knew where to look or what approach to try. We don't document the journey to knowledge - we document the findings.

At least, this is the practice I have been taught by professors familiar with APA and IEEE/ACM style publications, and appears to be the norm in human factors and human computer interaction from my own publication and research, and in my readings of algorithm research.

1
source | link

You don't cite things because they are where you learned about something in general (don't cite the journey you were taking), you cite something to show where a claim or piece of information actually comes from.

Example: McDonald's slogan in 2016 is "I'm lovin' it".

Citing the journey: My friend told me it was, I googled it, guy on twitter says it is the slogan, I googled it again more specifically, a paper on fast-food marketing mentioned it was on their website (or just said it was without citation), and it says so on the official corporate website McDonalds.com.

Proper academic citation source: McDonalds.com (primary source)

In your case, it's nice that someone mentioned something helpful to you in their introduction section, in exactly the same way that it's nice if a professor mentions something helpful to you in the hallway. But a citation is not for thanking someone or acknowledging someone for helping you find something useful to you - it's for allowing others to find the source of claim or support.

In your example case, it's nice that the physics paper tipped you off to a useful source, and so you should thank the library angels for their grace and kindness towards you this day. But then you should try to figure out where that quote actually comes from. If you can't find any other reference to this quote, you would then cite the paper only because you are saying it might actually be the source of this claim (and so it's apocryphal and there might not be such an ancient source). You could also cite it if you are referring to the paper directly, such as by noting that physicists are also interested in the topic (and may or may not be hipsters), and such legends of ancient importance are widely repeated.

Citing literature reviews follows the same rules: cite it if you refer to the paper directly, such as noting their literature review explicitly noted the widespread popularity of Aurora borealis among hipsters. Don't bother to cite it simply because it was helpful to you in tracking down a primary source, or simply helped you get caught up on the state of the field so you knew where to look or what approach to try. We don't document the journey to knowledge - we document the findings.