Reading #4--citing the literature

As you have no doubt noticed, authors of scientific papers cite other papers--a lot.  Why do we cite other work?  This may seem like an obvious question, but breaking down the citations by their purpose provides some insights that might help guide you through this surprisingly perilous part of scholarship.

Here are most of the reasons we cite other papers:

(1)  To provide background, history, and context:  We all build on the work of those who have gone before us.  The history leading up to the work you've done is important to readers for understanding the context of the work.  It is also important to acknowledge the work of those who are working on similar topics if their results could augment--or counter--yours.

(2)  To give credit where it is due.  Chances are someone before you has come up with at least part of the answer you are seeking.  Acknowledging priority is an important part of what makes a good scientist.  And this should be done both for those who might have foreseen your results as well as for those whose work you are rebutting (human nature is such that we seem readier to do the latter than the former).

(3)  To help define the problem.  This is related to point #1, but isn't quite the same thing.  I mentioned what our work does in Reading #2:  It fills gaps in our knowledge, extends a line of inquiry further, or testing a commonly held assumption.  To show how your work does this, you have to define the gap you are filling, what work you are extending, or what assumption you are testing (and why people held it before).  To do this, you have to cite the work that framed the gap, that you are extending, or that illustrates the untested assumption (to be significant, this untested assumption must have appeared quite commonly, so you should cite all the papers that made the assumption, or at least a representative sample).

(4)  To show how our work applies to other work.  This might not be an element of every paper you write, but sometimes we can demonstrate how our work might solve a problem that others have struggled with.  It's appropriate to cite the others.

So, what perils could possibly lie in the process of citing papers?  Quite a few, it turns out.  They aren't exactly parallel to the points made above, so this is a different list, but you will see the connections to the list above as you read.  Common mistakes are:

(1)  False or misleading citations.  It is very tempting to cite work that seems to support your results, but doesn't actually.  This usually happens for one of several reasons, including misreading the paper, citing speculation by the authors as support (that is, the authors speculated something that turns out to support your conclusions, but their work did not actually provide that support), or citing a paper that you have not actually read but that someone else cited but misrepresented.  Citing speculation by other authors is actually OK and can, in fact, add interest to the paper, so long as you are clear that's what you are doing.  You should read everything you cite; there are exceptions, but they are very rare.

(2)  Failing to cite relevant literature.  This is just sloppiness.  I have sympathy for myself and others--the literature is vast and becoming vaster--but not enough sympathy to excuse all of us.  It is vital to keep up with the literature.  Even worse is failing to cite relevant literature that contradicts your results.  You must face these contradictions head-on.

(3)  Failing to cite older literature, that is, literature from the pre-electronic days.  This is a touchy one because some journals limit the number of citations or length of the paper and, for some work, the number of citations could be almost endless.  It's also touchy because no one wants to make the trek to the library any more, and a lot of libraries aren't adequate.  But it is good practice because nearly all ideas floating around today had some kind of genesis in the older literature (see "give credit where it is due" above).  Fortunately, more and more old papers are becoming available as electronic downloads, but good practice is to hit up the library once in awhile.  Also, libraries have put a lot of work into their interlibrary loan practices, and it is often easy to get an electronic photocopy of something not available in your own library.  If you're limited by space, at least cite the most representative paper from the older literature.

(4)  Citing literature the editor wants you to cite, even if it not particularly relevant.  If the requested citation is from the same journal, resist these requests.  This is how journals boost their impact factors.  It's unethical and you should not buy into it.