An unused reference in a research paper
I am in a process of making a paper camera-ready for publication. In the reference section, I have listed some works, which are not referenced in the text.
For example, can I write in the main text:
This result1 is cited from [1].
This result2 is cited from [4].
… and in the reference section:
[1] cited from here
[2] cited from here
[3] cited from here
[4] cited from here
I have not referenced [2] and [3] anywhere in the paper.
Is this paper is valid for publication? Or does it not affect the paper?
publications citations
edited Mar 23 at 8:37
Wrzlprmft♦
34.6k11109186
asked Mar 22 at 18:23
Gopal ojhaGopal ojha
1194
add a comment |
I am in a process of making a paper camera-ready for publication. In the reference section, I have listed some works, which are not referenced in the text.
For example, can I write in the main text:
This result1 is cited from [1].
This result2 is cited from [4].
… and in the reference section:
[1] cited from here
[2] cited from here
[3] cited from here
[4] cited from here
I have not referenced [2] and [3] anywhere in the paper.
Is this paper is valid for publication? Or does it not affect the paper?
publications citations
edited Mar 23 at 8:37
Wrzlprmft♦
34.6k11109186
asked Mar 22 at 18:23
Gopal ojhaGopal ojha
1194
2
Related, I gather: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/124881/… (as in: "why would you do that?")
– Clement C.
Mar 23 at 9:38
add a comment |
I am in a process of making a paper camera-ready for publication. In the reference section, I have listed some works, which are not referenced in the text.
For example, can I write in the main text:
This result1 is cited from [1].
This result2 is cited from [4].
… and in the reference section:
[1] cited from here
[2] cited from here
[3] cited from here
[4] cited from here
I have not referenced [2] and [3] anywhere in the paper.
Is this paper is valid for publication? Or does it not affect the paper?
publications citations
edited Mar 23 at 8:37
Wrzlprmft♦
34.6k11109186
asked Mar 22 at 18:23
Gopal ojhaGopal ojha
1194
I am in a process of making a paper camera-ready for publication. In the reference section, I have listed some works, which are not referenced in the text.
For example, can I write in the main text:
This result1 is cited from [1].
This result2 is cited from [4].
… and in the reference section:
[1] cited from here
[2] cited from here
[3] cited from here
[4] cited from here
I have not referenced [2] and [3] anywhere in the paper.
Is this paper is valid for publication? Or does it not affect the paper?
publications citations
publications citations
edited Mar 23 at 8:37
Wrzlprmft♦
34.6k11109186
asked Mar 22 at 18:23
Gopal ojhaGopal ojha
1194
edited Mar 23 at 8:37
Wrzlprmft♦
34.6k11109186
asked Mar 22 at 18:23
Gopal ojhaGopal ojha
1194
edited Mar 23 at 8:37
Wrzlprmft♦
34.6k11109186
edited Mar 23 at 8:37
Wrzlprmft♦
34.6k11109186
edited Mar 23 at 8:37
Wrzlprmft♦
34.6k11109186
34.6k11109186
asked Mar 22 at 18:23
Gopal ojhaGopal ojha
1194
asked Mar 22 at 18:23
Gopal ojhaGopal ojha
1194
asked Mar 22 at 18:23
Gopal ojhaGopal ojha
1194
1194
2
Related, I gather: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/124881/… (as in: "why would you do that?")
– Clement C.
Mar 23 at 9:38
add a comment |
2
Related, I gather: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/124881/… (as in: "why would you do that?")
– Clement C.
Mar 23 at 9:38
2
2
Related, I gather: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/124881/… (as in: "why would you do that?")
– Clement C.
Mar 23 at 9:38
Related, I gather: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/124881/… (as in: "why would you do that?")
– Clement C.
Mar 23 at 9:38
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
This depends on the journal's style sheet, but usually you only list the references that are cited in the text. Thus, I would delete the superfluous ones (and renumber the notes).
answered Mar 22 at 20:20
henninghenning
19k46696
1
Indeed. Having random unused references in your manuscript is sloppy at best, and is an easy way to indicate to the reviewers that you haven’t proofread it.
– Jon Custer
Mar 22 at 23:33
add a comment |
It depends on why those "references" were present in the first place. If they're mistakes, get rid of them. If you want to point your readers to additional information, put them in a section called "Further Reading" following the References section. The style of the publication may dictate whether and exactly how you do that, but those dangling references do not belong in the References section.
answered Mar 23 at 8:47
Bob BrownBob Brown
19.8k95883
add a comment |
You have three options. I would consider any of them valid, but an editor might disagree.
Remove the extra references and renumber if necessary.
Put a note somewhere, say with the bibliography, that some references here are just background.
Ignore the problem, assuming that readers will assume 2.
I think these are in order of decreasing preference, but I wouldn't object to any of them.
answered Mar 22 at 18:33
BuffyBuffy
55.6k16175269
add a comment |
Calling the paper "invalid for publication" is a strong term, but this is not considered good practice[^1]; it is explicitly forbidden in the style guides of some journals[^2], and probably a good copy-editor would catch that issue and ask you to fix it before publication. (Not all journals have good copy-editors.)
[^1]: First of all, because it doesn't make your intent clear: what do you want to say by citing those papers? They are a reference for what exactly?
[^2]: I suspect many journals, but I can't check
answered Mar 23 at 10:27
Federico PoloniFederico Poloni
25.8k1180133
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126914%2fan-unused-reference-in-a-research-paper%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This depends on the journal's style sheet, but usually you only list the references that are cited in the text. Thus, I would delete the superfluous ones (and renumber the notes).
answered Mar 22 at 20:20
henninghenning
19k46696
1
Indeed. Having random unused references in your manuscript is sloppy at best, and is an easy way to indicate to the reviewers that you haven’t proofread it.
– Jon Custer
Mar 22 at 23:33
add a comment |
This depends on the journal's style sheet, but usually you only list the references that are cited in the text. Thus, I would delete the superfluous ones (and renumber the notes).
answered Mar 22 at 20:20
henninghenning
19k46696
1
Indeed. Having random unused references in your manuscript is sloppy at best, and is an easy way to indicate to the reviewers that you haven’t proofread it.
– Jon Custer
Mar 22 at 23:33
add a comment |
This depends on the journal's style sheet, but usually you only list the references that are cited in the text. Thus, I would delete the superfluous ones (and renumber the notes).
answered Mar 22 at 20:20
henninghenning
19k46696
This depends on the journal's style sheet, but usually you only list the references that are cited in the text. Thus, I would delete the superfluous ones (and renumber the notes).
answered Mar 22 at 20:20
henninghenning
19k46696
answered Mar 22 at 20:20
henninghenning
19k46696
answered Mar 22 at 20:20
henninghenning
19k46696
answered Mar 22 at 20:20
henninghenning
19k46696
19k46696
1
Indeed. Having random unused references in your manuscript is sloppy at best, and is an easy way to indicate to the reviewers that you haven’t proofread it.
– Jon Custer
Mar 22 at 23:33
add a comment |
1
Indeed. Having random unused references in your manuscript is sloppy at best, and is an easy way to indicate to the reviewers that you haven’t proofread it.
– Jon Custer
Mar 22 at 23:33
1
1
Indeed. Having random unused references in your manuscript is sloppy at best, and is an easy way to indicate to the reviewers that you haven’t proofread it.
– Jon Custer
Mar 22 at 23:33
Indeed. Having random unused references in your manuscript is sloppy at best, and is an easy way to indicate to the reviewers that you haven’t proofread it.
– Jon Custer
Mar 22 at 23:33
add a comment |
It depends on why those "references" were present in the first place. If they're mistakes, get rid of them. If you want to point your readers to additional information, put them in a section called "Further Reading" following the References section. The style of the publication may dictate whether and exactly how you do that, but those dangling references do not belong in the References section.
answered Mar 23 at 8:47
Bob BrownBob Brown
19.8k95883
add a comment |
It depends on why those "references" were present in the first place. If they're mistakes, get rid of them. If you want to point your readers to additional information, put them in a section called "Further Reading" following the References section. The style of the publication may dictate whether and exactly how you do that, but those dangling references do not belong in the References section.
answered Mar 23 at 8:47
Bob BrownBob Brown
19.8k95883
add a comment |
It depends on why those "references" were present in the first place. If they're mistakes, get rid of them. If you want to point your readers to additional information, put them in a section called "Further Reading" following the References section. The style of the publication may dictate whether and exactly how you do that, but those dangling references do not belong in the References section.
answered Mar 23 at 8:47
Bob BrownBob Brown
19.8k95883
It depends on why those "references" were present in the first place. If they're mistakes, get rid of them. If you want to point your readers to additional information, put them in a section called "Further Reading" following the References section. The style of the publication may dictate whether and exactly how you do that, but those dangling references do not belong in the References section.
answered Mar 23 at 8:47
Bob BrownBob Brown
19.8k95883
answered Mar 23 at 8:47
Bob BrownBob Brown
19.8k95883
answered Mar 23 at 8:47
Bob BrownBob Brown
19.8k95883
answered Mar 23 at 8:47
Bob BrownBob Brown
19.8k95883
19.8k95883
add a comment |
add a comment |
You have three options. I would consider any of them valid, but an editor might disagree.
Remove the extra references and renumber if necessary.
Put a note somewhere, say with the bibliography, that some references here are just background.
Ignore the problem, assuming that readers will assume 2.
I think these are in order of decreasing preference, but I wouldn't object to any of them.
answered Mar 22 at 18:33
BuffyBuffy
55.6k16175269
add a comment |
You have three options. I would consider any of them valid, but an editor might disagree.
Remove the extra references and renumber if necessary.
Put a note somewhere, say with the bibliography, that some references here are just background.
Ignore the problem, assuming that readers will assume 2.
I think these are in order of decreasing preference, but I wouldn't object to any of them.
answered Mar 22 at 18:33
BuffyBuffy
55.6k16175269
add a comment |
You have three options. I would consider any of them valid, but an editor might disagree.
Remove the extra references and renumber if necessary.
Put a note somewhere, say with the bibliography, that some references here are just background.
Ignore the problem, assuming that readers will assume 2.
I think these are in order of decreasing preference, but I wouldn't object to any of them.
answered Mar 22 at 18:33
BuffyBuffy
55.6k16175269
You have three options. I would consider any of them valid, but an editor might disagree.
Remove the extra references and renumber if necessary.
Put a note somewhere, say with the bibliography, that some references here are just background.
Ignore the problem, assuming that readers will assume 2.
I think these are in order of decreasing preference, but I wouldn't object to any of them.
answered Mar 22 at 18:33
BuffyBuffy
55.6k16175269
answered Mar 22 at 18:33
BuffyBuffy
55.6k16175269
answered Mar 22 at 18:33
BuffyBuffy
55.6k16175269
answered Mar 22 at 18:33
BuffyBuffy
55.6k16175269
55.6k16175269
add a comment |
add a comment |
Calling the paper "invalid for publication" is a strong term, but this is not considered good practice[^1]; it is explicitly forbidden in the style guides of some journals[^2], and probably a good copy-editor would catch that issue and ask you to fix it before publication. (Not all journals have good copy-editors.)
[^1]: First of all, because it doesn't make your intent clear: what do you want to say by citing those papers? They are a reference for what exactly?
[^2]: I suspect many journals, but I can't check
answered Mar 23 at 10:27
Federico PoloniFederico Poloni
25.8k1180133
add a comment |
Calling the paper "invalid for publication" is a strong term, but this is not considered good practice[^1]; it is explicitly forbidden in the style guides of some journals[^2], and probably a good copy-editor would catch that issue and ask you to fix it before publication. (Not all journals have good copy-editors.)
[^1]: First of all, because it doesn't make your intent clear: what do you want to say by citing those papers? They are a reference for what exactly?
[^2]: I suspect many journals, but I can't check
answered Mar 23 at 10:27
Federico PoloniFederico Poloni
25.8k1180133
add a comment |
Calling the paper "invalid for publication" is a strong term, but this is not considered good practice[^1]; it is explicitly forbidden in the style guides of some journals[^2], and probably a good copy-editor would catch that issue and ask you to fix it before publication. (Not all journals have good copy-editors.)
[^1]: First of all, because it doesn't make your intent clear: what do you want to say by citing those papers? They are a reference for what exactly?
[^2]: I suspect many journals, but I can't check
answered Mar 23 at 10:27
Federico PoloniFederico Poloni
25.8k1180133
Calling the paper "invalid for publication" is a strong term, but this is not considered good practice[^1]; it is explicitly forbidden in the style guides of some journals[^2], and probably a good copy-editor would catch that issue and ask you to fix it before publication. (Not all journals have good copy-editors.)
[^1]: First of all, because it doesn't make your intent clear: what do you want to say by citing those papers? They are a reference for what exactly?
[^2]: I suspect many journals, but I can't check
answered Mar 23 at 10:27
Federico PoloniFederico Poloni
25.8k1180133
answered Mar 23 at 10:27
Federico PoloniFederico Poloni
25.8k1180133
answered Mar 23 at 10:27
Federico PoloniFederico Poloni
25.8k1180133
answered Mar 23 at 10:27
Federico PoloniFederico Poloni
25.8k1180133
25.8k1180133
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126914%2fan-unused-reference-in-a-research-paper%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Related, I gather: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/124881/… (as in: "why would you do that?")
– Clement C.
Mar 23 at 9:38