Let's say I'm writing a report about sociological consideration of Aurora borealis in hipster communities. I want to support the value of my paper by showing that the way in which people consider Aurora borealis is a major and recurrent question.
I have found a paper saying in its literature review: "Aurora borealis have been written about for at least 4000 years, starting with Chronicles of a Minoan watching the sky by Ithurts Myneck (~ 2100BC)". So this is a perfect example of an information I want to report in my paper.
However, this paper turns out to deal with the physics of charged particles in solar wind - that means neither the scope of this paper, nor the scientific discipline it belongs to are related to my topic. Moreover, the reality of the book Chronicles of a Minoan watching the sky is evidenced by other means (i.e. this paper is not the only one that is talking about the book). But I cannot access the book to read it.
Question: I want to write in my report that Aurora borealis has been a concern for a long time, and prove this assertion by giving the example of the Chronicles of a Minoan watching the sky. Should I credit (i.e. cite) the paper where I found this information, even if it is not related to the core/added of the paper?
I want to give credit for the information I found, however, it is sometimes said: "When you cite a paper, you will be citing from [result] section. If you find yourself citing a paper based on something in the Intro [= literature review?] , you're just citing another citation."
Answer
There is more controversy on this topic than I expected, so I've done some further digging. The results of this surprised me!
Institution, Program, and Journal requirements
The rules of your neighborhood may differ, so you'll want to follow whatever more specific rules are given to you in your program. For example, Columbia College demands secondary source citation:
Indebtedness
You must cite any text you read that helped you think about your paper even if you do not reference it directly in the text of your paper.
However, the OWL APA style reference gives differing advice:
Work Discussed in a Secondary Source
NOTE: Give the secondary source in the references list; in the text, name the original work, and give a citation for the secondary source. For example, if Seidenberg and McClelland's work is cited in Coltheart et al. and you did not read the original work [emphasis mine], list the Coltheart et al. reference in the References. In the text, use the following citation...
So if you merely were directed to the original work, but then attained the original work and read it, there is not necessarily any need to cite the secondary source - but the guide doesn't prohibit it.
However, the IEEE has a stance as strong as Columbia, but in the opposite direction! As noted by York University in their IEEE style guide (page 5 of the pdf):
Should I use secondary references?
A secondary reference is given when you are referring to a source which you have not read yourself, but have read about in another source, for example referring to Jones’ work that you have read about in Smith. You should avoid using secondary references and locate the original source and reference that.
Murdoch University has an even stronger interpretation:
• IEEE style does not allow for the use of secondary source.
• Locate the original source of information which is cited in a work which you have read.
• If an original source cannot be located, it should not be cited.
Jeeze, no wonder there are so many different answers!
So it would seem there cannot be a one-size fits all answer - it depends. What is required in one field and style is forbidden in another, and optional in a third (and apparently even then people differ).
No comments:
Post a Comment