6 ms·
224 is a lot, and some of them seem a little gratuitous: "For example, robots can outperform humans in manual labor (Frey & Osborne, 2017; Murphy, 2017
by mattkrause 4y ago
224 is a lot, and some of them seem a little gratuitous:
"For example, robots can outperform humans in manual labor
(Frey & Osborne, 2017; Murphy, 2017)"
However, I wouldn't read a lot into it. In general, I think we'd be better off if people cited more widely instead of just choosing the "classic" reference from a famous group (that may not even be the first/best work on the topic).
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y agoIt’s not really much different than doing something like citing Stack Overflow or a book in your code comments.
- mattkrause 4y agoSure. I was just surprised because my fields cite a bit more sparingly (and journals often limit you to ~50-75 per paper). I use them for specific results or original/controversial ideas, but I wouldn't bother for something fairly obvious like "robots can sometimes outperform people." It seems like including an SO link for a bog standard for-loop in your code.