Citation overkill

By -
I've commented before on the tendency I see in academic papers to pile up citations by mentioning something rather trite and then throwing in an authority who has mentioned it previously.

Tonight, in reviewing the Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain, I ran across this gem:

"Good nutrition is essential for human growth and maintenance (Scott 1986)."

I guess Dr. Scott, in 1986, was the very first person to ever have noted this! I would not be surprised, later in this paper, to find a citation like:

"Days on the earth are characterized by periods of light, occurring when the sun is in the sky, and subsequent periods of darkness, when it is not (Hesiod 700 BCE)."

Comments

  1. Unknown1:20 PM

    Gene, it is probably a combination of overly eager undergraduates who plagiarize and their overly eager professors to crack down on this plagiarizing. Right now, at least in the undergraduate world, the pressure to cite literally *everything* is intense. Maybe this spills over to the higher levels (graduate level and PhD).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Samson Corwell7:17 AM

      Exactly. High school required me make citations for most obvious things. I hate formal requirements in paper writing.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more