There are two kinds of "cite" here. Citing a non-academic source is different from citing a (published) paper; you should cite anything that precedes your work in the second sense, whereas the first is only obligatory for work that you actually took something from. If you work on calculus you're obliged to cite Leibniz even if you didn't read him, but you are not obliged to cite Newton's unpublished work unless you read it. Unpublihed arXiv papers fall in the latter category.
Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?
31–40 of 114 posts
Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?
#32I am astounded that people would question citing an arxiv paper. If you get an idea from somewhere else, you cite it. This doesn't even have to do with the archive. I have on multiple occasions read papers where the author wrote a proof and then cited "private communications" with another mathematician as the source. In a business where ideas are ideas, you should always cite the source. Anything else is extremely di…
I don't think the issue is the act of citation itself, more that the citation is meant to provide a level of assurance that the idea you're citing is true. If you cite a paper in Science that carries with it a knowledge that some clever people have looked over it and can't see any obvious issues with the work. If you cite a napkin sketch that doesn't carry that weight and pushes the onus on to the reader to verify the cited claim themselves. In a paper with 100 citations that's not really a practical position to be in.
Im not saying it's necessarily a good system (plenty of shit makes it in to journals after all), but I can understand why an author would be hesitant to cite lots of non-peer reviewed sources in a paper of theirs. Having said that, I guess that's really just a sign that you're on shakey ground if you're reliant on dodgy sources!
Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?
#33There is a massive disjunct between citation in the humanities and citation in science. People seem to have forgotten this. Ideas are two a penny, they literally do not matter at all they should not be cited. The person who introduces a concept to science deserves no credit whatsoever. What deserves credit is the provision of evidence or proof.
Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?
#34Confused by this part: > Yes, of course. Any time that our work follows, copies, or borrows ideas from other people, and when we can reasonably be expected to be aware of this, we ought to cite the related work. > We should not have to cite nonsense. Many reviewers are abusing the system and asking for ridiculous comparison to recently-posted preprint papers. Bald-faced flag-planting should not be rewarded. And we sh…
It's clear enough to me. In a well written article, he's advocating a middle way.
On the one hand, if you borrow an idea from another person or source, then you should cite it. Just because it's only the arXiv doesn't give you a pass not to.
On the other hand, "flag-planting" articles are not something that you borrow from so you don't have to cite them - and you shouldn't as the practice should not be rewarded.
As `CogitoCogito points out, it's routine to cite completely unpublished material such as private communications.
Conversely, if a flag-planting article somehow makes it into a very prestigious journal, then you can still ignore it.
So really, the publishing status is only an initial filter, and the potential source should always be judged on its merits.
Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. You always cite your source. Period. Sometimes you also cite sources to help the reader. E.g., I have cited Wikipedia articles for basic concepts in peer-reviewed articles.
Five years ago (during my PhD) I would not have been "allowed" to cite a paper which has not been peer-reviewed and published in the proceedings of a recognised conference. Papers on arXiv where specifically black-listed. Mentioning Wikipedia (even off the record, in personal meetings) would have been the start of fast road to the bottom.
This dissonance seems to come from the fact that citing has two purposes
1. Assigning credit to where you heard about something.
2. Giving a claim (the best possible, and sufficiently strong) support.
Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. You always cite your source. Period. Sometimes you also cite sources to help the reader. E.g., I have cited Wikipedia articles for basic concepts in peer-reviewed articles.
Five years ago (during my PhD) I would not have been "allowed" to cite a paper which has not been peer-reviewed and published in the proceedings of a recognised conference. Papers on arXiv where specifically black-listed. Mentioning Wikipedia (even off the record, in personal meetings) would have been the start of fast road to the bottom.
Even during my masters I have always felt that it was not done or at least questionable to cite wikipedia. However, wikipedia is often an excellent source for a first read on a new topic. The next step should then be to read wikipedia's sources, and slowly expand your view on the subject.
However, sometimes it happens that you read first about a topic on wikipedia, and worked something out on the information you found there, before you had time to consult wikipedia's sources. In this case you definitely should cite wikipedia.
Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?
#37How is "flag-planting" even relevant to this ? You only cite what you use and you should not be using vapid hollow flag-planting sources from _anywhere_. Someone needs a fresher course on academia 101. Is it the reviewers ?
Flag-planting is relevant because the practice of flag-planting (and other abuses of the pre-print) is what has prompted some of this over-reaction.
Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?
#38I am astounded that people would question citing an arxiv paper. If you get an idea from somewhere else, you cite it. This doesn't even have to do with the archive. I have on multiple occasions read papers where the author wrote a proof and then cited "private communications" with another mathematician as the source. In a business where ideas are ideas, you should always cite the source. Anything else is extremely di…
I don't think the issue is the act of citation itself, more that the citation is meant to provide a level of assurance that the idea you're citing is true. If you cite a paper in Science that carries with it a knowledge that some clever people have looked over it and can't see any obvious issues with the work. If you cite a napkin sketch that doesn't carry that weight and pushes the onus on to the reader to verify th…
> If you cite a paper in Science that carries with it a knowledge that some clever people have looked over it and can't see any obvious issues with the work. If you cite a napkin sketch that doesn't carry that weight and pushes the onus on to the reader to verify the cited claim themselves.
I think no matter the source, you (as the author) have the final responsibility of citing correct work. You can (reasonably) choose to only cite nature because it is "safer" choice, but you can also cite other sources though you should of course take care to vet that source well yourself. As you point out, a lot of shit makes it into journals and in fact many journals are themselves shit (and outright frauds) so adding arxiv as a source doesn't really fundamentally change anything.
As a side note, I believe that many papers cite way _too_ many papers. Unless you use or expand upon a paper's work, I think you shouldn't be citing it (except possibly as general background knowledge). I just can't understand how you can write a paper that's explicitly doing so with 100 previous works (a book sure, but not a paper). Then again, my citation philosophy goes against many others (including my former advisor). Many think you should cite basically anything tangentially related (especially the works of the academic king makers). For me this is no longer important since I no longer am an academic researcher. I have the freedom to pontificate on the subject without any worries of having a career. :)
Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?
#39Confused by this part: > Yes, of course. Any time that our work follows, copies, or borrows ideas from other people, and when we can reasonably be expected to be aware of this, we ought to cite the related work. > We should not have to cite nonsense. Many reviewers are abusing the system and asking for ridiculous comparison to recently-posted preprint papers. Bald-faced flag-planting should not be rewarded. And we sh…
Include the next sentence for the first quote: Yes, of course. Any time that our work follows, copies, or borrows ideas from other people, and when we can reasonably be expected to be aware of this, we ought to cite the related work. Something being on arXiv or in a blog post or … doesn't excuse not citing it if it influenced your work. It's important to document where your ideas and data come from, both to give cred…
> The second quote is about stuff that didn't influence your work. While you are expected to keep up with and document related developments, forcing authors to constantly update references to new, not yet properly evaluated work just because it makes some related claim doesn't make sense.
It doesn't say that though, it just says that you shouldn't have to cite nonsense on arXiv. This implies that you can read a paper, implement something similar, and afterwards decide that the paper was nonsense, didn't influence your work, and shouldn't be cited.
Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?
#40Confused by this part: > Yes, of course. Any time that our work follows, copies, or borrows ideas from other people, and when we can reasonably be expected to be aware of this, we ought to cite the related work. > We should not have to cite nonsense. Many reviewers are abusing the system and asking for ridiculous comparison to recently-posted preprint papers. Bald-faced flag-planting should not be rewarded. And we sh…
It's clear enough to me. In a well written article, he's advocating a middle way. On the one hand, if you borrow an idea from another person or source, then you should cite it. Just because it's only the arXiv doesn't give you a pass not to. On the other hand, "flag-planting" articles are not something that you borrow from so you don't have to cite them - and you shouldn't as the practice should not be rewarded. As `…
But this implies that you could re-implement/modify/publish something from a paper and just not cite it because you deem it to be nonsense. That's surely dishonest. If you've read something which closely relates to your work then it's your responsibility to make this clear, whether you like the paper or not.
If it doesn't relate to your work, or you haven't read it, then obviously it needn't be cited.