I am writing an article that is analysing an existing article, that only uses secondary research (research that wasn't conducted by myself - and that I'd obtained from this article). When citing this information in my essay do I cite the same article over and over again when talking about each piece of information? Or cite the article's bibliography? I am only obtaining information from this one article.


Cite the article(s) you use. If you need to talk about that article in terms of earlier ones, cite those.

An example. Suppose the article you are analyzing is "Smith". Then you cite Smith. But if you have to say somewhere that, for example "Smith was led to this conclusion from ... 'Jones'", where "Jones is in Smith's bibliography, then also cite Jones.

Otherwise you are sort of led to citing a chain of publications back to the foundations of the field. Very few papers require that sort of thing and they are very specialized.

| improve this answer | |
  • 3
    To add to this, though, you need to make sure you actually read Jones too; you shouldn't cite Jones merely because you read Smith's citation of Jones. – Bryan Krause Jul 26 '18 at 20:54
  • @BryanKrause, yes indeed. Thanks for the clarification. – Buffy Jul 26 '18 at 20:54
  • 1
    To add, you can also write something like "See Smith (2016) and references cited therein". – Allure Jul 26 '18 at 22:09
  • To reiterate: if you use it, cite it. The question of citing sources cited by the source you cite is subtler. – paul garrett Jul 26 '18 at 22:47
  • 1
    To extend on the point @BryanKrause made: You should absolutely read Jones, as an important part of your analysis should be if Smith quoted correctly - not (only) formally, but with regard to quoting wrong things that never were in the original paper. – Dirk Jul 27 '18 at 9:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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