2 ms·

At least in hard sciences, citations are more. The real reason fore citations is to a) show that you know the subject matter and, more importantly b) make use o

At least in hard sciences, citations are more. The real reason fore citations is to a) show that you know the subject matter and, more importantly b) make use of established facts. The problem is now that some of these facts are unique. While you, for example, could ignore measured data points if there are others around (not a good idea), you can not simply replace a theorem etc. by something else. You can not attribute it to someone else either. And you shouldn't use it without citations either, because the chain of proof has to be preserved. The endorsement of a person's work is a consequence of this. If the findings are more relevant or important, they will be cited more. -> if you are cited more, you do important stuff.

vkou 8y ago
Not all citable, background material is unique, and irreplaceable. Half of the cited opinions in the article that advise against citing do so in a quantifiable manner. "Billy's work isn't that important, other contributors have done work of similar importance, without a cloud of unethical behavior around them, you lose little by failing to refer to it, or by citing someone else instead." Unless Billy is the first, only, and final word of authority on a subject (Which in hard sciences, or mathematics, he may well can be,) you can probably find equivalent results among his peers.