Referring to the work of other authors is a key aspect of any academic research: the references you cite display your academic credentials and also locate or situate your research to identify the contribution it makes in the context of earlier studies.

However, the phrasing and mechanics of referencing often pose a challenge to authors, and poor referencing is among the reasons why some papers are rejected. One aspect of poor referencing is using the work of others too descriptively to the extent that it drowns the author’s own voice. As an author, you need to realise that the way you cite the work of others also reflects your voice.

This article looks at some ways early career researchers (ECRs) typically cite sources and how to do that better.

a.     Citing too few or too many references

Both too few and too many references can be a problem.

·         If you have too few references, your readers will not be able to grasp where the present paper fits with the earlier literature and the foundation on which the present paper rests. Also, it looks superficial if all the references are to a single work.

·         On the other hand, if you have too many references, your voice will be lost among the voices of others: your writing will often be perceived as feeble and (as an author) you will come across as too scared to assert your own voice. The middle path – the referencing being neither excessive nor scant – allows your voice to emerge.

b.    Citing irrelevant or trivial references

In choosing whom to cite, be aware that other readers will assess your choice: whom you believe to be worthy of mention, whose work you consider reputable and of good quality. If readers see citations that are irrelevant or unimportant or, even worse, refer to work that has been found questionable, readers will question your credibility as an authority on the topic of your paper. Therefore, be selective in the works you choose to cite.

c.      Failing to cite influential papers

You need to know the origins of significant ideas in your field – the work that has had an impact on that field. When you do so, you will notice that some of these seminal papers could be quite old. At the same time, you also need to be up to date with recent literature, because your readers want to know what work was the most recent at the time you completed your research and will expect such work to be among the citations.

d.    Including too many quotations

Reproducing the exact words from the cited sources can be highly illustrative or lend authority to a claim, but excessive quotations also make your own work look weak. Summarising or paraphrasing works better with most studies – although a study based on interviews will be liberally peppered with quotes.

e.      Lacking proper organisation

Sometimes, literature reviews become mere inventories, comprising lists of names arranged in boringly chronological order. Although this is one approach to organising your review, it is not the only one. Drawing out themes and groups of related authors from the literature shows organisational awareness and goes beyond a purely descriptive approach. Furthermore, explaining the links between these groups allows you to bring in your own voice by making comparisons and assessing the success of these groups in addressing the topic of your work.

f.      Being too descriptive (as part of a certain culture)

ECRs from certain geographies (such as the Chinese and Slavic geographies) refrain from direct criticism of the work of others. They tend to merely report what others have done without adding their own evaluation, which makes the review too descriptive.

On the other hand, in English academic writing, evaluative comments are appreciated, and the choice of verbs often reflects this stance:

‘Shows’ or ‘demonstrates’ signals agreement.

‘Fails’ or ‘neglects to consider’ points to problems.

‘Claims’, ‘tries’ or ‘attempts’ indicates failures.

Pointers to effective citations

In the example article linked below, good citation practices are evident.

·         In the first section, the author clearly groups related authors and nearly always cites more than one example, sometimes up to eight in one cluster.

·         Dates show a good spread, with some quite recent citations.

·         Direct quote is limited to one, used for showing how the earlier research formulates the hypothesis.

Go through the article here.

One last tip

Keep examining how published writers use sources and adapt those ways to fit the discipline you write in. Soon, you too will be using academic sources very astutely!