My first publication!

[Caffeinated Chemist]

My question is on the references section.

 

Are 18 sources enough for a 5,500 word paper? I feel that my research is thorough and my knowledge on the subject is well rounded with these sources, but as I'm now looking at a colleague's paper, which my research built on, I see that he included 32 sources in his references section.

 

How many references do you generally include in your publications?

 

Thanks!

[ydoaPs]

I guess the real question is: "Did you use more than 18 sources?".

[Caffeinated Chemist]

I guess the real question is: "Did you use more than 18 sources?".

 

I did not. I may have used more sources if I did not jump in with a group who has been researching this topic for a long time, but most of my questions were answered by simply asking around. The 18 sources are primarily used for justifying the research and background on the problem.

[ydoaPs]

A good rule is to not cite things you didn't use and not use things you don't cite.

[timo]

Pardon the sarcasm, but: What's that rule good for?

[CharonY]

ydoaPs, on 04 Apr 2014 - 09:15 AM, said:

A good rule is to not cite things you didn't use and not use things you don't cite.

 

 

This is not as much a rule but just how citing works. Any information above basic textbook stuff has to be referenced. But you do not squeeze in unneeded references. One possible exception is if you anticipate a particular referee and you have not cited any work of her/him.

 

But as ydoaPs said, the references should be based on what you have written down. If you have too few references it only means that you provided insufficient information. But if you justification and discussion is good as it is, it does not need anything else.

 

 

 

I did not. I may have used more sources if I did not jump in with a group who has been researching this topic for a long time, but most of my questions were answered by simply asking around. The 18 sources are primarily used for justifying the research and background on the problem.

 

I assume that you have also references in the discussion? With few exception you need to bring you results into context of the existing literature.

 

Crossposted and messing up formating.

Edited April 4, 2014 by CharonY

[Caffeinated Chemist]

I think I understand what you all are getting at; that the number of sources can vary and not to let a specific number have undue influence on my paper.

 

I guess what I was looking for was whether or not a smaller references section would still look like I had done the appropriate amount of background research and, as CharonY pointed out, cross-referencing of my results and discussion section.

 

I've been searching literature all of today and have happily run across a few papers cited by some of my references which also support my own discoveries. I think that citing more than one source when making a claim could only help bolster my research and expand my references section. I'm not sure it's a necessity, but I don't think it could hurt either.

[CharonY]

It is crucial to demonstrate literature knowledge and elucidate how your research results fit into the overall context of things we know and how it adds to the existing canon. Papers that come to similar conclusions with different methods for example can provide more evidence for the proposed hypothesis.

What you should stop doing is thinking of your references as a type of section that needs to be bolstered or tuned. It is your manuscript (discusion/intro/whatever) that needs to be bolstered and you do it with references. The length of the reference list is just a consequence thereof and totally irrelevant.

If you have done reading the lit and citing key references then you have automatically the perfect number of references.