New answers tagged

0

I agree with the responses above. Once you identified and cited the sources of the data, statistical/qualitative results don't need citations because you found them. In terms of the citation style, I think you are asking the wrong question. Whatever journal you plan to submit the article, you should follow their instruction about the style.


3

For an n = 1 perspective: I serve on an editorial board for a journal was told front matter such as editorials and some types of perspective papers count for citations, but not number of articles. Also, getting articles online early gives them more time to be "cited" before the time window closes for impact factors. So, journals will try to ...


4

Yes, cite it. Note that the form of citation probably isn't critical at the submission stage. By the time the final version of the new paper is being written the conference citation will become fixed. It takes more than two months from submission to final version preparation in the best cases. Depend on the delay and on the fact that edits will almost ...


0

Unless you are doing a historical examination of a theory, you don't always have to cite the original source of an idea. Some ideas have entered the literature to such an extent that authors may just give some key citations to major works, which may not have been the original works on the topic. Academic papers will sometimes briefly discuss the genesis of ...


1

You don't need to cite your "data" every time you mention it Assuming it is okay to identify the institutions in your study, I would recommend that you cite the published reports and other public works from these organisations (using standard citations), but for the remaining material you can consider this as part of your "data" and you ...


2

You don't need to cite things that are "common knowledge". But this depends to a pretty big extent on the audience. If you were writing for me, you would need to cite it since this is the first time I'd be likely to see the term. If you were writing for a psychology audience it might be different (I can't judge, obviously). However, while it may ...


5

I think it's fine to include projects on a CV that haven't been peer reviewed with a parenthetical that they are "submitted" or "in progress", especially for early-career researchers like undergraduate students. It's a bit weird when professors with a longer CV include these projects, but I doubt many people really count it against them (...


11

Your paper is a preprint. What you plan to do with it in the future is not relevant, or appropriate to include in your CV, in my humble opinion. It is generally assumed that authors of preprints are planning to submit their papers for publication, so listing your paper as “scheduled for submission”, or similar, will add nothing and make you seem clueless or ...


4

"Work in Progress" is pretty common and generally acceptable. You could make it a bit more specific if you like if you have an immediate need to send out a CV. "Work in Progress" is actually a good section to include in a CV since it implies that you are currently active. Such a section with a firm title for a paper will probably give ...


2

There is no need for a plagiarism checker on the author's side. Just follow the rules outlined by the institution/publisher, and that's it. Really! It is perfectly normal for plagiarism checkers to catch some text as potentially plagiarised. This is not problematic, as the checker is only there to help the grader or the publisher to detect plagiarism. For ...


1

Just as you wouldn't cite Wikipedia directly, you also shouldn't cite YouTube directly. The issue is that both sites present user-generated content immediately, with no peer review or fact checking process (Wikipedia arguably can have these features after the fact via community editors, but it's difficult to know when/if information has been verified). ...


1

If you cite their work, then it isn't plagiarism. You just make clear what things, especially ideas, came from them and which are your own. Plagiarism isn't about reuse, but about misattribution. However, you may have to deal with copyright as well which will limit how much of what they say can be part of your paper. But quoting brief passages (with citation)...


1

Your problem is unusual, but it helps to work from first principles, namely that the main purpose of all citation systems is to allow a reader to locate the source to which the author is referring. That is true for a thesis, journal paper, conference paper, or blog. You don't say what it is that you are writing but if you are writing a thesis for a ...


3

You can import your library into Inciteful.xyz* or LitMaps. * Note: So far, Inciteful.xyz only supports an import of BibTeX files. However, (1) you can easily convert .ris files to BibTeX, and (2) it seems that Inciteful.xyz is still under development and might enable the direct import of .ris files soon (see this Tweet).


3

You can cite Youtube videos, just include some explanation. The first reference of this PRL article about rigid-body rotations is a Youtube video so it's certainly been done before in a serious scientific article.


16

If you’re going to use the fact in your academic writing, then yes, you have to cite it. The real question is, is the source credible enough that it would be acceptable for you to trust that the fact it claims is a true one? The answer to that does not depend on the fact that the source is a YouTube video: some YouTube videos (say, of a lecture by a Nobel ...


69

If you have gathered some information from a YouTube video, and if there is no better source for it; then the YouTube video is what you should cite. Now whether a YouTube video is a reliable source or not depends on a lot of details. If, for example, the YouTube video is a recording of a reputable academic giving a scientific talk, then you can treat it with ...


12

You still need to avoid a charge of plagiarism. If the information is "common knowledge" then you don't need a citation, but otherwise it needs to be attributed to a source. Perhaps the YouTube video had a presenter or something that identifies where the information comes from. But, as a last resort, credit the video along with a date that you ...


3

If you don't still hold copyright to the journal article, then you need to get permission to use the figure and you need to cite the original. Your agreement with the publisher or the terms under which the article was published may, already, give you a license to do this. So, no, the requirements aren't different for blogs.


1

dimensions.ai automatically generates a plot of such information when you search for papers on it. I've found it very useful myself. (I know this is an old question, but I'm adding this answer just in case someone comes across it.)


2

You can just share it. Perhaps mention it as a result "in parallel" or "independently". You don't need to point out that you did it first or that they didn't cite you (this looks petty), just point out it exists and it's similar. Cite yourself, too, of course. Readers can follow the two citation paths and see that yours was indeed first, ...


0

People like to add references to make the paper look more informed. An advisor I had kept a huge list of references he added to every paper remotely related.


-1

Obviously, you should cite any article where you have used their material, and exclude any that you have not. That said, one should consider that there are several reasons why it is helpful to cite a paper! These factors might alter how much time you might spend on a literature review and what directions you spend your effort. If you are publishing in ...


2

You ask "is this enough?" almost as if there's a cut-off for the number of citations. There isn't. Just cite however many articles you need to so that you have actually referenced everything that you've used in your research.


15

How long is a piece of string? The answer is that there is no limit. You should cite as many or as few other works (papers, books etc) as you have used and built on in your research. Adding pointless citations to get your reference count up to some arbitrary number is silly and clutters your work with useless information. Similarly, using or building on ...


-1

It not only depends on your field, but on the type of paper you are writing. Review papers typically have much more references, from 50-150 (or even more). If you are writing a paper about you experimental work and reference other works only in the introduction and discussion, 14 might be perfectly fine.


1

Look at how many citations other publications have in your target journal or field. How many citations do your 14 references have? There is no hard and fast rule, but you should be able to defend that you searched the current literature and point out who has done what and other research that supports some of your claims. In engineering, we typically have ~30-...


2

Research papers need not contain a comprehensive review of all of the literature plausibly related to their content - it's neither possible nor desirable. While you should avoid "through citations" where you cite Jones et al for saying "Baker et al found", it's perfectly reasonable to cite review articles for their overall conclusions and ...


-1

Monsteriah suggested to search by keyword on Google Scholar: this indeed allows us to get some decent estimate of the number of citations the top x researchers in a given research field (defined by a Google Scholar keyword such as "computer vision" or "natural language processing"). Examples: The #2000 researcher in computer vision (...


Top 50 recent answers are included