5 ms·

I don't think the issue is the act of citation itself, more that the citation is meant to provide a level of assurance that the idea you're citing is true. If y

by remus 9y ago

I don't think the issue is the act of citation itself, more that the citation is meant to provide a level of assurance that the idea you're citing is true. If you cite a paper in Science that carries with it a knowledge that some clever people have looked over it and can't see any obvious issues with the work. If you cite a napkin sketch that doesn't carry that weight and pushes the onus on to the reader to verify the cited claim themselves. In a paper with 100 citations that's not really a practical position to be in. Im not saying it's necessarily a good system (plenty of shit makes it in to journals after all), but I can understand why an author would be hesitant to cite lots of non-peer reviewed sources in a paper of theirs. Having said that, I guess that's really just a sign that you're on shakey ground if you're reliant on dodgy sources!

CogitoCogito 9y ago
> If you cite a paper in Science that carries with it a knowledge that some clever people have looked over it and can't see any obvious issues with the work. If you cite a napkin sketch that doesn't carry that weight and pushes the onus on to the reader to verify the cited claim themselves. I think no matter the source, you (as the author) have the final responsibility of citing correct work. You can (reasonably) choose to only cite nature because it is "safer" choice, but you can also cite other sources though you should of course take care to vet that source well yourself. As you point out, a lot of shit makes it into journals and in fact many journals are themselves shit (and outright frauds) so adding arxiv as a source doesn't really fundamentally change anything. As a side note, I believe that many papers cite way _too_ many papers. Unless you use or expand upon a paper's work, I think you shouldn't be citing it (except possibly as general background knowledge). I just can't understand how you can write a paper that's explicitly doing so with 100 previous works (a book sure, but not a paper). Then again, my citation philosophy goes against many others (including my former advisor). Many think you should cite basically anything tangentially related (especially the works of the academic king makers). For me this is no longer important since I no longer am an academic researcher. I have the freedom to pontificate on the subject without any worries of having a career. :)
- thirdstation 9y ago
  Some interesting work regarding citations has been put forth by the Semantic Publishing and Referencing ontologies, specifically the CiTO ontology[1]. It allows an author to state the reason for the citation (supports, refutes, etc.). Having to state a reason could reduce spurious citations while providing a more accurate view of the nature of a paper's impact. [1] http://www.sparontologies.net/ontologies/cito http://www.sparontologies.net/ontologies/cito
dekhn 9y ago
I disagree with your statement about papers in Science. pretty much every paper I read in science has basic invalidating errors that would have been caught if it had more review. Papers in Science are fast-tracked to be published as soon as possible so the competitors don't get published in Nature first.

by remus 9y ago

CogitoCogito 9y ago

> If you cite a paper in Science that carries with it a knowledge that some clever people have looked over it and can't see any obvious issues with the work. If you cite a napkin sketch that doesn't carry that weight and pushes the onus on to the reader to verify the cited claim themselves. I think no matter the source, you (as the author) have the final responsibility of citing correct work. You can (reasonably) choose to only cite nature because it is "safer" choice, but you can also cite other sources though you should of course take care to vet that source well yourself. As you point out, a lot of shit makes it into journals and in fact many journals are themselves shit (and outright frauds) so adding arxiv as a source doesn't really fundamentally change anything. As a side note, I believe that many papers cite way _too_ many papers. Unless you use or expand upon a paper's work, I think you shouldn't be citing it (except possibly as general background knowledge). I just can't understand how you can write a paper that's explicitly doing so with 100 previous works (a book sure, but not a paper). Then again, my citation philosophy goes against many others (including my former advisor). Many think you should cite basically anything tangentially related (especially the works of the academic king makers). For me this is no longer important since I no longer am an academic researcher. I have the freedom to pontificate on the subject without any worries of having a career. :)

thirdstation 9y ago
Some interesting work regarding citations has been put forth by the Semantic Publishing and Referencing ontologies, specifically the CiTO ontology[1]. It allows an author to state the reason for the citation (supports, refutes, etc.). Having to state a reason could reduce spurious citations while providing a more accurate view of the nature of a paper's impact. [1] http://www.sparontologies.net/ontologies/cito http://www.sparontologies.net/ontologies/cito

dekhn 9y ago

I disagree with your statement about papers in Science. pretty much every paper I read in science has basic invalidating errors that would have been caught if it had more review. Papers in Science are fast-tracked to be published as soon as possible so the competitors don't get published in Nature first.