- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm writing a review. I've been looking at other reviews on the same topic- when I find a primary source through another review do I need to cite the review too?
Citation: Primary vs secondary sources?
- Thread starter 2gunornot2gun
- Start date
If you cite the review it becomes a secondary source. What you MUST do is locatete the primary source used in the review because then you can be sure of its proper context - if you just take it from the review all you have is that context and so you cannot be sure that it was used and understood in its own context so that they can see you have not misused it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 0
Yea that's what I've been trying to do. My question is if I have to cite both the review and the primary that they review cited or can I just site the original source of info?
If you have located the primary source then there is no need to mention that you first came across it somewhere else. What is important is that anyone can now look at the primary source and read what you might say about it and if they wish check the original context.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 0
great thanks. This is what I thought.
I know how strict they can be with citations though
If you want to be a Boy Scout about citing your sources, then yes you would do this. Even though the review is a 'secondary' source, it pointed you to the primary literature and should be credited for doing so.
In practice, this is more common in the humanities and some social sciences (e.g., "Westbrook (1925), cited in Berry (1980), indicates that..."). In the medical and public health sciences, this practice is frowned upon. I have had manuscripts returned to me during the review process where the editor insists that the primary source and only the primary source be cited.
