Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Should I cite a source that cites an older source?

+0
−0

I am writing a scientific research paper and one of the sources I am using introduced a concept which I am using within the paper. The source I read (published in 1969) credits this concept as being coined by a different source (published in 1944). I do not have access to the original source. Would there be a problem if I do not cite the original source because I do not have access to it? Or do I have to include the original author since everyone else credits the 1944 source?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/41488. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

3 answers

You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.

+0
−0

It depends on your audience and/or publisher.

If this is a paper for a class, you're probably fine. But if this is your thesis/dissertation or something you're going to publish, you need to see that earlier work.

It would be one thing if you were just alluding to the concept. Listing it as one you've dismissed, for example. But you're actually using the concept in your paper. You need to have a full understanding of where it comes from. You may decide you like the original version better, or you might prefer the later one. It may also turn out that the 1969 author was being thorough but really the 1944 idea didn't do the same thing.

What worries me most though is when you say "everyone else credits the 1944 source." That's a sign that it's important. There is no getting around it; you need to see the 1944 work.

To be clear, I'm not saying just that you need to cite the 1944 author, but that you have to read the 1944 work.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

+1
−0

It might depend on the institution, but often times it's fine because it's your personal source for information, and if your reviewer looks at the source they will see where it comes from. I had a similar issue in an essay once, but it ended up being fine.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/41490. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

+0
−0

In scientific academic settings, the original article should be preferred, read and cited, and an effort should be made to do so. It is however acceptable to refer to a more recent one under certain circumstances. For instance, you may cite the recent article if:

  • the recent article offers a complete analysis of the idea you refer to. It is still fine if the idea originated elsewhere but the authors provide an extensive analysis.
  • you have no way to verify the content of the older article, e.g. If it is written in a language you don't understand
  • the recent article is a review and discusses many articles that are relevant to your work. To cite as "for a review on the topic see X"

Note that you don't need to justify your choice. If you're writing an article, you may be requested by the reviewers to add references.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »