Imagine someone\u00a0explaining a complex topic, like\u00a0how to improve the fuel efficiency of a boat. But shortly after starting the explanation, they go off on a series of tangents about pretty boats they’ve seen, big boats, rubber ducks, submarines, and other transportation vehicles such as the new 787 by Boeing et al. Then they return to the explanation of boat efficiency without ever referencing why they brought up those\u00a0strange tangents.<\/p>\n
Tangents are confusing, and they hurt clarity. The related work section is often just a string of unrelated tangents, which is a waste of the reader’s time.<\/p>\n
Now let me make something clear: I am not necessarily saying that papers\u00a0should cite fewer sources. Instead,\u00a0each citation should serve an\u00a0obvious,\u00a0specific purpose. And if that purpose is so tangential to the structure of your argument that you need to put it in what amounts to a citation dumping ground, then it isn’t needed.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Offloading proof\u00a0is\u00a0the primary reason to\u00a0cite an article. It allows you to make a statement without having to rehash an entire body of literature. However, make\u00a0sure to provide a succinct description of the conclusion. Otherwise, its relevance is unclear.<\/p>\n
Good example<\/em>: Task A\u00a0has good performance for this condition [citation] but bad performance for that condition [citation].<\/p>\n Bad example<\/em>: Smith et al.\u00a0have looked at this task\u00a0[citation].\u00a0(without any description of what was\u00a0found)<\/em><\/p>\n This type\u00a0of citation clarifies that a\u00a0question is not already answered.\u00a0It’s\u00a0still supporting a claim, but\u00a0it\u00a0says “we\u00a0don’t want you to confuse the problem we’re solving with the problem that another article\u00a0solved”. However, only use this type\u00a0of citation to clearly contrast\u00a0very similar work.<\/p>\n Good example<\/em>:\u00a0Although technique A is better than B for task X [citation], we don’t know if that benefit extends to task\u00a0Y.<\/p>\n Bad example<\/em>: Our paper is not like X [citation], Y [citation], or Z [citation], as those works are on completely different topics in completely different fields.<\/p>\n Research should be more than an intellectual exercise.\u00a0A paper should\u00a0contextualize the\u00a0knowledge that will be obtained.\u00a0It’s tough when you’re deeply\u00a0embedded in solving a problem to remember\u00a0to explain to others why\u00a0solving the problem\u00a0matters. But it’s necessary.<\/p>\n However,\u00a0motivation can often be accomplished through a general citation-less discussion (e.g. “imagine if someone\u00a0wants to…”). Motivating via citations\u00a0becomes useful when you want to show that\u00a0people are already doing\u00a0a task\u00a0that you want to improve or understand.<\/p>\n But be succinct! You don’t need an\u00a0exhaustive list in the beginning of a paper.\u00a0One way to\u00a0simplify the motivation citations is to\u00a0put examples in a table or appendix.\u00a0More than a couple examples in the body of a paper tends to be more distracting than informative.<\/p>\n Stating which tools were used can certainly clarify how the authors accomplished something. But there’s a line between being helpfully descriptive and overly\u00a0verbose. It’s important to\u00a0cite\u00a0a new or\u00a0little known tool. Whereas\u00a0long diatribes about the history\u00a0of tools that most are already familiar with are unnecessary.\u00a0The degree of explanation can range from a citation-filled\u00a0subsection devoted entirely to explaining a\u00a0very new\u00a0tool to a single citation to just a\u00a0mention for the most familiar tools.<\/p>\n The same is true for\u00a0experimental methods. You really don’t need to\u00a0describe\u00a0Fechner’s early use of\u00a0the method of limits, nor is it appropriate to\u00a0cite the patent for the tachistascope for timed presentation. Use common sense here.<\/p>\n Good example<\/em>: We\u00a0compute position via\u00a0the recently released toolkit X [citation or just link].<\/p>\n Bad example<\/em>: We ran this experiment on the world wide web [citation<\/a><\/span>] which runs on\u00a0a network [citation<\/a>] of transistor-based computing machines [citation<\/a>].<\/p>\n These citations often make up\u00a0a lot of the bloat in introductions and related work sections. The question to ask is whether\u00a0your argument will be weakened by dropping the citation. For kinda-sorta-like citations, dropping them has no effect on the\u00a0logic of the paper.<\/p>\n Bad example<\/em>: We examine the benefit\u00a0of curvature in edge bundling. Euler’s work from 300 years ago looked at curves\u00a0too [citation]. Here are 47 other things that were round…<\/p>\n This\u00a0mistake is more the fault of reviewers than authors. It’s understandably tough to rebut a review when your submission’s acceptance relies on the reviewer’s approval, so many authors just add suggested references without question. These unexplained\u00a0citation demands\u00a0are common in reviews, which is unfortunate because they’re rarely productive:<\/p>\n “This work fails to cite: [Smith 2001] and [Jones 2002]. \u00a0Reject!”<\/p>\n However, it is completely valid for a review to say that a submission fails to support a\u00a0pivotal\u00a0claim. In that case, it’s not even necessary to specify which reference is missing.\u00a0Though\u00a0a review should try to suggest references that\u00a0can\u00a0support the claims. Such review comments\u00a0can help and substantially\u00a0strengthen the final publication.<\/p>\n Cite references in a narrative support of your argument throughout\u00a0the introduction and the\u00a0body of your paper.\u00a0A good introduction gets to the point quickly. It guides the reader through the motivation for studying a\u00a0problem and sets\u00a0up the main questions.\u00a0Then each section can cite support for any additional claims or expectations\u00a0not discussed\u00a0in the introduction.<\/p>\n The “related work” section seems to mostly be a phenomenon\u00a0of\u00a0computer science publications.\u00a0Other fields and sciences manage just fine without\u00a0it, and\u00a0I can attest that InfoVis<\/a>\u00a0and CHI<\/a> papers can be written\u00a0without this unneeded section.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Imagine someone\u00a0explaining a complex topic, like\u00a0how to improve the fuel efficiency of a boat. But shortly after starting the explanation, they go off on a series of tangents about pretty boats they’ve seen, big boats, rubber ducks, submarines, and other transportation vehicles such as the new 787 by Boeing et al. Then they return to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":499,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":3,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2,4,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-461","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-chi","category-science","category-visualization"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/461","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=461"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/461\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":521,"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/461\/revisions\/521"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/499"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=461"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=461"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=461"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}2. Contrast\u00a0what is and isn’t already known<\/h3>\n
3. Motivate the question<\/h3>\n
4. A hat tip to tools and methods used<\/h3>\n
Why you should NOT cite an article<\/h2>\n
1. This topic is\u00a0kinda sorta like that topic<\/h3>\n
2. Just because a reviewer said so<\/h3>\n
But where SHOULD\u00a0citations go?<\/h2>\n