Based on what I have read, the options are to say something is either reprinted or adapted. But "adapted" seems to suggest, according to a college website I was looking at, mere aesthetic changes. I'm dealing with much more significant changes.

What I am doing is this: First, there is a psychology article with a table. I'm taking about half of the info in the table (12 of 20 statements), mixing some of it together (e.g., Number 1 and 3 are now mixed together into Number 1) so they become 8 statements overall, and then adding my own 12 statements (e.g., Numbers 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20) are mine.

You might suggest I separate my statements and put them in another table but I can't because I'm basically filling in the gap in the information from the original table. To give an example, imagine the writer talks about issues people have in different age groups, and the info is presented in a random order and with only some age groups. What I'm doing is putting them in order and filling in missing age groups with my own knowledge.

Would "adapted from" suffice in such a case?

1 Answer 1


What you do is create your own table, and not display an existing one in modified form. Thus, I would cite the contents taken from the other publication just like any other source you refer to.

I would suggest the following: indicate the rows of the table taken from the source in any way (e.g. put an asterisk at the end of the rows, make those rows a different color, ...) and at the end of the table add a footnote stating: "information in marked rows taken from [cite source]."

  • 1
    Right. Each entry in a table can have its reference like indexes a b c.... Caption can then have linea such a: ref#. b: ref# and so on.
    – Alchimista
    May 19, 2021 at 8:34

You must log in to answer this question.

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