1

Context: I'm working on a paper in APA style. I created two scatterplots on my own using code I wrote in R. However, the actual raw data represented comes from a source in my references.

Issue: I feel I'm in a bit of a quandary: I deserve recognition for the creation of these figures, yet I feel I must still provide an in-text citation in the figures' captions. The closest parallel I can come up with is that the interpretation (in the form of visual elements) of the source's raw data is ultimately my paraphrasing the raw data; thus requiring a citation so as not to constitute plagiarism.

Should I just simply provide an in-text citation in the caption and not mention that the figures won't be found in the cited source?

If not, what's a succinct way to highlight the fact that the figures aren't in the source, only the raw unmunged data? Should I, perhaps, forgo citation of the data's source in the figure and only cite the data's source when discussing the figures in the actual text?

4

Plagiarism is one thing, and I support your view on this situation as paraphrasing data. But a more important reason to add a citation is to let the reader know where the data is coming from (and how the data was collected). This is immensily important for the reader to understand and analyse your presented data correctly. In my mind, we should always write with open cards, i.e. so that our work is repeatable and deductions are easy to follow.

Should I just simply provide an in-text citation in the caption and not mention that the figures won't be found in the cited source?

I would recommend a sentence in the figure text of something like: "The data in this figure are derived from raw data found in [source]." Preferably add an equation reference to the equation that the plotted data is a result of: "The data in this figure are derived from raw data found in [source] by using (equation reference)." or ..."by applying (equation reference) to it."

In my mind this kind of sentence will make it clear where the raw data is coming from, and that the figure you present is your work and therefore not found in the source.

Should I, perhaps, forgo citation of the data's source in the figure and only cite the data's source when discussing the figures in the actual text?

The reference to the raw data should be in the figure text. A common way to read a report/article is to read summary and conclusion and scroll through to read highlights and look at figures. Therefore the figure texts should explain their figure in a quite independent way, so that the quick read gives a good understanding of what the figure presents without searching through the main text. References to how the data was collected and computed, is part of the foundation for understanding the figure.

| improve this answer | |

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.