Hamachan et al.: You are referring to the transition of something to the state of "common knowledge". Keep in mind, it NEVER hurts to cite those things -- if there is ANY doubt, you might as well just cite it. A bit of time on google scholar can help figure out the original reference. The citation example you state of a t-test is a good one, though -- I cite when I use generalized additive models (GAMs) whenever I use them, but not an ANOVA. Perhaps I need to rethink how I cite methods.
I think what people were responding to, however, was your statement that it is ok to use a word-for-word, exact verbage that another person used. Regardless of common-knowledge or not, copying/pasting is plagiarism if you do not cite -- in fact, in that case you should be citing the source of the copy (and using quotations). --j Hamazaki, Hamachan (DFG) wrote: > As some research techniques become widely popular and standardized, I > don't find any reason to cite the original paper. > > Nobody cite William Sealy Goseet for t-test, Ronald Fisher for ANOVA, > or Howard T Fisher for GIS. In fact, you need to dig up a history book > to find out who is the original inventor. > > PCR method was innovative when it came out in mid 80s. But, it has > become widely popular on these days. Even a high school student with a > PCR machine can do this. In fact, this is a cookbook method now. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction > > When a research method is taught at undergraduate level, I don't think > I need to cite the original paper for a publication. I use this rule > of thumb. > > Does anyone have other rule of thumb for citation of a method? > > > Toshihide "Hamachan" Hamazaki, PhD : 濱崎俊秀：浜ちゃん > Alaska Department of Fish & Game > Division of Commercial Fisheries > 333 Raspberry Rd. Anchorage, Alaska 99518 > Ph: 907-267-2158 > Fax: 907-267-2442 > Cell: 907-440-9934 > E-mail: [email protected]
