Wayne, right or wrong, you are good at bringing up things that warrant consideration, and that most people would not mention.
The "rules" I was taught and have always tried to operate by are: (1) always give credit by citation for the sources of your information or ideas unless original or generally recognized as accepted or long established (one does not need to cite sources for the idea that life is as it is due to evolution), (2) cite the 3 most relevant and original sources, rather than listing a litany of all who ever wrote on a subject, (3) cite only material you have personally consulted. I do not think that publications that follow these "rules" are overly plump with citations. mcneely ---- Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: > Ecolog: > > I have only some vague observations, no scholarship, but as I suspect that > better women and men have laid this out in detail somewhere, I am asking if > anyone can steer me toward an answer. > > Are citations and references overdone in the published literature of ecology? > > I get the uneasy feeling that they are overdone; even that the practice of > paper-padding could be on its way to epidemic proportions. I get this > impression from reading papers that are exceedingly long, fully of all sorts > of complex mathematics, contain citations in what seems to be every other > sentence (or at least several per paragraph), and are backed by lists of > references that would take me years to consult (even if, which is rarely the > case, each had a link and there was no firewall preventing me from going > beyond an absurdly brief "abstract." Again, I hope I am wrong. > > It seems that I was taught that the relevance of a citation and its text had > to be supported by something other than a previous claim, (itself, perhaps, > based on yet another similar claim) to my text, which I was required to > justify, and to ultimately consult the original research or theoretical > foundation. In addition, I was supposed to consult communications that might > refute the research, as well as replicated studies. And on and endlessly, it > seemed, on and on . . . > > This may be one aspect of academic work that spooked me toward "applied" > stuff; I just don't remember. But I bought into that idea of scholarly > writing, and I've been pretty satisfied with its validity ever since. I have > always tended to cite too little; at least that has been a criticism. In fact > I have always preferred not to publish at all, finding applied field work > just too much fun. > > Here's part of my problem. I like to scan the literature at home without > going to the university library. I seldom read entire papers (or, for that > matter, books, although I do get sucked into reading all of the exceptionally > good ones frequently). When I get bored or confused by a paper, or encounter > the issues just mentioned, I fear that my prejudice may be unfounded (and my > ignorance all too well founded) and I will miss something elegant buried in > all that complexity. > > Is there any validity to my observations at all; most of all, am I > exaggerating and indulging in unwarranted criticism when only my ignorance is > to blame? > > Thanks for any thoughts, > > WT -- David McNeely
