> >
> > The pattern suggests that 45 scientists, who might well have read the
> > paper, made an error when they cited it. Then 151 others copied their
> > misprints without reading the original. So for at least 77 per cent of
> > the 196 misprinted citations, no one read the paper.
>
Actually, my papers typically have some citations which are
included out of respect for those who first researched the topic.
If I say "Furde proved X in [17].", I'm merely acknowledging that
Furde did prior work. I usually have not read the original paper,
and don't care.
---David
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
