@failedLyndonLaRouchite @devezer @modrak_m
Interesting article!
Sounds familiar that the mis-citation rate for a paper can increase over time because people don’t read the primary source and instead rely on other’s (incorrect) interpretations causing a "domino effect" of miscitation!:
“One fifth of the citation inaccuracies were due to chains of inaccurate citations, in which citation errors appeared to have been copied from previous papers.”
@MarkRubin @failedLyndonLaRouchite @devezer @modrak_m That's interesting, and resonates - I've also found my self wondering "did these people read my paper?".
I think I read something, and can't remember where, along the lines of authors feel compelled to provide citations for everything and anything out of fear that they be called on it, namely by referees.
If someone has some references for this I would appreciate.
@JoseEdGomes @MarkRubin @failedLyndonLaRouchite @devezer @modrak_m
I am not sure on this either. I know from when I studied the science courses at the OU, we usually have to list all the books or sources we have read. I think there is a difference between references (cited information) and a bibliography which is a list of everything, even if we have not actually quoted or used information within.
You can have 10 sources listed in the bibtek file, cite 5 and only those 5 will be listed.
It may also depend on the journal you are submitting to, as each have their own requirements and format for how items are listed.
I will let those who are doing more academic writing comment further.
