New answers tagged citations
4
The process you are describing is called hearsay which is noteably unreliable.I would always go to the original publication if possible. I have seen peer-reviewed review papers that got basic facts wrong. In fact one such paper is accessible here: Applications of shape memory alloys in civil structures. in this paper the authors state without even citing:
...
10
Let me provide an example that may be analagous to your current situation.
GPGPU (general purpose GPU) programming first started taking off in its current form when NVIDIA released the GTX 8800 graphics card family and the CUDA programming language back in 2006 through 2008.
This represented a step change from the previous GPGPU techniques in that it was ...
17
It sounds to me that there's a confusion between two things:
Motivations of the research: imho it's completely fine to use non-academic sources to justify why the research is being done, especially in the case of a new application/domain. This part can even require a thorough analysis of what it would be used for, by whom and what are existing solutions (...
11
There's nothing wrong with using popular articles as a source of information - for example if I were trying to get a sense of a new field, Wikipedia is one of the first resources I make use of. But using these as primary sources is very iffy. These popular-level articles are written by people who read the research works and then simplified them for laymen. ...
10
With all due respect, I believe you are mistaken. There is a lot of published research on AI, including the work done at Google. Of course, they don't publish every piece of work they've ever done, but there's a lot out there. For example, if you were interested in something related to AlphaGo, you should look into
Silver, David, et al. "A general ...
20
Answering for anyone who comes across this question from social science etc. as it is a bit different. We can use popular media sources, but only for certain things.
As someone who uses popular press articles as a "source" for my research, and who advises students who do the same, there is an important distinction to be made and a significant amount of ...
61
I find the entire premise of the question quite odd. First of all, to answer your question: I’d say that in most cases I’ve encountered the answer would be no, you can’t use popular science articles as a primary source.
That said, I seriously doubt that they’re all that’s out there. Google works on this problem: they came up with it and no one else ever ...
7
I can suggest a case in which it might be appropriate, but in general, it would be risky. As you say, the sub field you are exploring is new and little if anything has been published.
Suppose you find a claim in an article that you can base your research on - either proving it or refuting it. The "idea" for the research comes from a reading of the article. ...
46
From the way you describe, this sounds really strange especially since there is a lot of real research in AI.
I cannot believe you could only use those articles. However, your supervisor is the right person to ask - most likely, they alone will decide whether or not your dissertation is enough.
2
A website that offers some related information: http://www.semanticscholar.org. Sadly, they don't give the precise number of citations, but a list of "influencing" and "influenced" researchers based on a metric which incorporates the number of citations.
5
I am sympathetic to the problems in writing effectively in languages other than one's most native language.
Still, you should never just copy-and-paste. Period.
Nevertheless, yes, if/when you know well-enough some standard definitions/concepts, you will appreciate their highly optimized forms, and see that it is best to essentially say the same thing.
Yes....
3
There is nothing wrong with something like:
'blah' was defined by R A Fisher [reference] as 'blah blah blah', in this paper we adopt that definition. - You give credit to the author of the definition, you do not give the impression that it was your idea.
If the definition is very well known in your field you might get away with 'blah' is usually defined as '...
6
Please do not borrow sentences
Instead, borrow sentence structures. If the original sentence is, "Our results also have implications on the study of öhkömönkiäiset.", you might write "Our main result also has implications on öhkömönkiäis-studies."
First, this way you are not copy-pasting. Second, this forces you to think about the language and therefore ...
1
You could ask the original author to put the data in a data repository (like Zeonodo or Figshare) and claim a doi for it. That makes the data object citeable in its own respect and you can give credit in a persistent way (as a bonus you get the author to think about licensing of their data).
43
Write:
[...] something extended, flexible and [mutable].
You might like to elaborate in a footnote, e.g.,
The compendium poorly translates original word as movable, but mutable is more appropriate, as noted by Marleen Rozemond in "Descartes' Dualism," page 93.
(Depending on the style, you might like to replace in "Descartes' Dualism," page 93 with a ...
14
To preserve a comment made by Ben Bolker as an answer, since comments should not be used as answers and can get deleted at any moment:
If you want to make an editorial change to a direct quote because you want to shorten something or fix a dodgy translation, the word(s) you change should be put between [square brackets]. This is to indicate that this is a ...
29
I ended up adding a footnote to the page, with a numeric mark. In this, I referenced the source which explained why it makes more sense to change the words.
2
Self citing is a common thing in medicine where good number of the papers are simply case reports and reviews. A faculty can co-author with large number of students and trainees and keep citing his/her previous papers. The publication numbers can be unreal, citations become mathematically multiplied and h-index will be high. I came across authors with ...
3
Try viewing the page source and then search for "DOI". Worked for me.
0
Check with the publisher - they are the ones who will know. In particular, look at the journal's website and see if they have any "abstracting" or "indexing" information.
For example, Elsevier's Journal of Theoretical Biology is not ISI-web of science indexed, or PubMed indexed, but is indexed by a variety of other databases.
5
Begin by trying to speak to the author and see what he says. Then:
Speak to the editor of the journal, unless the author is willing to submit a correction instead. If the problem is big enough that it:
a) Misrepresents your work to the degree that someone would think, from this article's citation alone, that you did or did not do something critical, or
...
Top 50 recent answers are included
