What's an appropriate phrasing of a caveat about self-citation?Will self-citation be viewed as self-promotion in academia? Where to find journal impact factors stripped of self-citation?Label based in text citationIs there a self-consistent citation system?How to discourage irrelevant self-citation?When does self-citation become citation padding?Do statements giving background about a problem require proper citation?How to define “self-citation”?Self-plagiarism and citation when working on 2 papers simultaneouslyHow should I respond to a reviewer's complaint about self-citation?
Can a controlled ghast be a leader of a pack of ghouls?
Identify a stage play about a VR experience in which participants are encouraged to simulate performing horrific activities
Stereotypical names
I'm in charge of equipment buying but no one's ever happy with what I choose. How to fix this?
Have I saved too much for retirement so far?
Partial sums of primes
Can a Bard use an arcane focus?
Is there a smaller tautogram checker?
How did Monica know how to operate Carol's "designer"?
Is it possible to have a strip of cold climate in the middle of a planet?
Perfect riffle shuffles
How to interpret the phrase "t’en a fait voir à toi"?
Is there enough fresh water in the world to eradicate the drinking water crisis?
Calculating the number of days between 2 dates in Excel
Is there an wasy way to program in Tikz something like the one in the image?
Is it okay / does it make sense for another player to join a running game of Munchkin?
What will be the benefits of Brexit?
Female=gender counterpart?
Are taller landing gear bad for aircraft, particulary large airliners?
What is the term when two people sing in harmony, but they aren't singing the same notes?
Visiting the UK as unmarried couple
Can I Retrieve Email Addresses from BCC?
Left multiplication is homeomorphism of topological groups
What's an appropriate phrasing of a caveat about self-citation?
What's an appropriate phrasing of a caveat about self-citation?
Will self-citation be viewed as self-promotion in academia? Where to find journal impact factors stripped of self-citation?Label based in text citationIs there a self-consistent citation system?How to discourage irrelevant self-citation?When does self-citation become citation padding?Do statements giving background about a problem require proper citation?How to define “self-citation”?Self-plagiarism and citation when working on 2 papers simultaneouslyHow should I respond to a reviewer's complaint about self-citation?
I'm writing some report, and at a certain point I give an example by citation. The citation format is such that you don't see any names (e.g. "[123]") without visiting the bibliography; or maybe it's just initials. And I wasn't the only author. I would like to "warn" my readers to take the citation with a grain of salt, as I am relying on what is at least partly, if not mostly, my own perspective or my own arguments elsewhere. At the same time, I don't want it to sound like I'm boasting about being an author; nor that I'm making a stronger pitch of the cited paper; nor that I'm disparaging it somehow.
What's a good way to phrase this limite-caveat/weak-warning?
Note:
- I'm currently writing alone, am not using the first-person voice at all, and have just a handful third-person "it is the author's opinion that" and similar expressions.
- I can't presume to individually take the credit for the work in [123] which was a group effort.
citations writing-style self-citation
|
show 1 more comment
I'm writing some report, and at a certain point I give an example by citation. The citation format is such that you don't see any names (e.g. "[123]") without visiting the bibliography; or maybe it's just initials. And I wasn't the only author. I would like to "warn" my readers to take the citation with a grain of salt, as I am relying on what is at least partly, if not mostly, my own perspective or my own arguments elsewhere. At the same time, I don't want it to sound like I'm boasting about being an author; nor that I'm making a stronger pitch of the cited paper; nor that I'm disparaging it somehow.
What's a good way to phrase this limite-caveat/weak-warning?
Note:
- I'm currently writing alone, am not using the first-person voice at all, and have just a handful third-person "it is the author's opinion that" and similar expressions.
- I can't presume to individually take the credit for the work in [123] which was a group effort.
citations writing-style self-citation
Could you write it like "we did this in [123]"?
– Guest
8 hours ago
@Guest: The "we" in [123] is myself and some others; but what I'm writing now is just me.
– einpoklum
7 hours ago
4
The citation format is such that you don't see any names — So don't do that. One simple fix (which I strongly recommend for other reasons) is to give people explicit credit in the text. "The previous best algorithm for factoring roosters, discovered independently by Knuth [42] and Turing [222], was recently surpassed by Rozenberg [123]."
– JeffE
7 hours ago
Following from @Guest, alternatives include: In collaboration with X & Y, I ... [123] (you can drop "In collaboration" if you like) or Myself et al. [123] (particularly useful if you were the first author, but still works if you weren't).
– user2768
7 hours ago
@JeffE: The style of using people's names in the text or in citation keys is essentially unheard of in my discipline.
– einpoklum
43 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
I'm writing some report, and at a certain point I give an example by citation. The citation format is such that you don't see any names (e.g. "[123]") without visiting the bibliography; or maybe it's just initials. And I wasn't the only author. I would like to "warn" my readers to take the citation with a grain of salt, as I am relying on what is at least partly, if not mostly, my own perspective or my own arguments elsewhere. At the same time, I don't want it to sound like I'm boasting about being an author; nor that I'm making a stronger pitch of the cited paper; nor that I'm disparaging it somehow.
What's a good way to phrase this limite-caveat/weak-warning?
Note:
- I'm currently writing alone, am not using the first-person voice at all, and have just a handful third-person "it is the author's opinion that" and similar expressions.
- I can't presume to individually take the credit for the work in [123] which was a group effort.
citations writing-style self-citation
I'm writing some report, and at a certain point I give an example by citation. The citation format is such that you don't see any names (e.g. "[123]") without visiting the bibliography; or maybe it's just initials. And I wasn't the only author. I would like to "warn" my readers to take the citation with a grain of salt, as I am relying on what is at least partly, if not mostly, my own perspective or my own arguments elsewhere. At the same time, I don't want it to sound like I'm boasting about being an author; nor that I'm making a stronger pitch of the cited paper; nor that I'm disparaging it somehow.
What's a good way to phrase this limite-caveat/weak-warning?
Note:
- I'm currently writing alone, am not using the first-person voice at all, and have just a handful third-person "it is the author's opinion that" and similar expressions.
- I can't presume to individually take the credit for the work in [123] which was a group effort.
citations writing-style self-citation
citations writing-style self-citation
edited 6 hours ago
einpoklum
asked 8 hours ago
einpoklumeinpoklum
25k140143
25k140143
Could you write it like "we did this in [123]"?
– Guest
8 hours ago
@Guest: The "we" in [123] is myself and some others; but what I'm writing now is just me.
– einpoklum
7 hours ago
4
The citation format is such that you don't see any names — So don't do that. One simple fix (which I strongly recommend for other reasons) is to give people explicit credit in the text. "The previous best algorithm for factoring roosters, discovered independently by Knuth [42] and Turing [222], was recently surpassed by Rozenberg [123]."
– JeffE
7 hours ago
Following from @Guest, alternatives include: In collaboration with X & Y, I ... [123] (you can drop "In collaboration" if you like) or Myself et al. [123] (particularly useful if you were the first author, but still works if you weren't).
– user2768
7 hours ago
@JeffE: The style of using people's names in the text or in citation keys is essentially unheard of in my discipline.
– einpoklum
43 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
Could you write it like "we did this in [123]"?
– Guest
8 hours ago
@Guest: The "we" in [123] is myself and some others; but what I'm writing now is just me.
– einpoklum
7 hours ago
4
The citation format is such that you don't see any names — So don't do that. One simple fix (which I strongly recommend for other reasons) is to give people explicit credit in the text. "The previous best algorithm for factoring roosters, discovered independently by Knuth [42] and Turing [222], was recently surpassed by Rozenberg [123]."
– JeffE
7 hours ago
Following from @Guest, alternatives include: In collaboration with X & Y, I ... [123] (you can drop "In collaboration" if you like) or Myself et al. [123] (particularly useful if you were the first author, but still works if you weren't).
– user2768
7 hours ago
@JeffE: The style of using people's names in the text or in citation keys is essentially unheard of in my discipline.
– einpoklum
43 mins ago
Could you write it like "we did this in [123]"?
– Guest
8 hours ago
Could you write it like "we did this in [123]"?
– Guest
8 hours ago
@Guest: The "we" in [123] is myself and some others; but what I'm writing now is just me.
– einpoklum
7 hours ago
@Guest: The "we" in [123] is myself and some others; but what I'm writing now is just me.
– einpoklum
7 hours ago
4
4
The citation format is such that you don't see any names — So don't do that. One simple fix (which I strongly recommend for other reasons) is to give people explicit credit in the text. "The previous best algorithm for factoring roosters, discovered independently by Knuth [42] and Turing [222], was recently surpassed by Rozenberg [123]."
– JeffE
7 hours ago
The citation format is such that you don't see any names — So don't do that. One simple fix (which I strongly recommend for other reasons) is to give people explicit credit in the text. "The previous best algorithm for factoring roosters, discovered independently by Knuth [42] and Turing [222], was recently surpassed by Rozenberg [123]."
– JeffE
7 hours ago
Following from @Guest, alternatives include: In collaboration with X & Y, I ... [123] (you can drop "In collaboration" if you like) or Myself et al. [123] (particularly useful if you were the first author, but still works if you weren't).
– user2768
7 hours ago
Following from @Guest, alternatives include: In collaboration with X & Y, I ... [123] (you can drop "In collaboration" if you like) or Myself et al. [123] (particularly useful if you were the first author, but still works if you weren't).
– user2768
7 hours ago
@JeffE: The style of using people's names in the text or in citation keys is essentially unheard of in my discipline.
– einpoklum
43 mins ago
@JeffE: The style of using people's names in the text or in citation keys is essentially unheard of in my discipline.
– einpoklum
43 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
I doubt that you need to do anything at all that you wouldn't do for any other paper or author. I think self-citation is really only an issue when it is overdone and/or no one else agrees with you.
But if they (hopefully) believe what you are writing at present, they don't need to be "warned" that you also wrote something similar or supporting in the past.
If you normally say "Smith in [3] says,..." and you are Jones, then you can say "Jones in [5] implies..." or similar. There are other answer/comments here that give other suggestions if you really think you need to be more specific.
add a comment |
"In previous work [1-3] the author showed that ..."
or
"We have recently shown that ... [1-3]"
With phrases like that I never had a complaint from a peer-reviewer.
New contributor
The wording suggests that in [123], I did all the work and the other authors didn't really contribute much.
– einpoklum
6 hours ago
1
It is easy enough to use the variation: "In previous work [1-3] the author, et. al., showed that ..."
– Buffy
6 hours ago
add a comment |
One of the authors, together with others, has done something of note in [123].
A, B and C also claim this and that [123].
That said, you can probably leave the warning off the paper. Anyone interested in the claim will check the supporting source for credibility, or at least they ought to. If you do not believe in the claim, qualify the claim as is relevant for how credible you think it is: Call it a conjecture or guess, write that the claim has been suggested or is worth investigating, or whatever you feel is true. Then write that the other paper (also) supports the claim.
add a comment |
I would like to "warn" my readers to take the citation with a grain of salt, as I am relying on what is at least partly, if not mostly, my own perspective or my own arguments elsewhere.
Unless there’s something specific about the context that you’re not telling us that makes this a good idea, in general I see no need for such a warning. Your readers are capable of thinking for themselves. They will look at the citation, see what it says, think about it (taking various pieces of information into account, including the knowledge of who wrote it), and decide if they agree with it. The fact that it’s a self-citation is basically irrelevant from the point of view of the way you should be presenting things. Treat it as a citation to any other work by any other person.
At the same time, I don't want it to sound like I'm boasting about being an author; nor that I'm making a stronger pitch of the cited paper; nor that I'm disparaging it somehow.
Those are somewhat valid concerns, but at the end of the day again my recommendation is to write whatever you would write if the cited paper was written by anyone else: if it deserves to be praised, praise it, if it deserves to be disparaged, disparage it, and if you think it should be referred to using a neutral tone, then mention it in a neutral tone. If you are acting in good faith and aren’t saying something that’s obviously over the top and ego-driven, reasonable people will not find fault with what you wrote.
If you're saying that there is already some work on a subject, but it's just your (and your collaborators') work, it's different than saying that there's community interest, for example.
– einpoklum
45 mins ago
@einpoklum agreed.
– Dan Romik
20 mins ago
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%2f127008%2fwhats-an-appropriate-phrasing-of-a-caveat-about-self-citation%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
I doubt that you need to do anything at all that you wouldn't do for any other paper or author. I think self-citation is really only an issue when it is overdone and/or no one else agrees with you.
But if they (hopefully) believe what you are writing at present, they don't need to be "warned" that you also wrote something similar or supporting in the past.
If you normally say "Smith in [3] says,..." and you are Jones, then you can say "Jones in [5] implies..." or similar. There are other answer/comments here that give other suggestions if you really think you need to be more specific.
add a comment |
I doubt that you need to do anything at all that you wouldn't do for any other paper or author. I think self-citation is really only an issue when it is overdone and/or no one else agrees with you.
But if they (hopefully) believe what you are writing at present, they don't need to be "warned" that you also wrote something similar or supporting in the past.
If you normally say "Smith in [3] says,..." and you are Jones, then you can say "Jones in [5] implies..." or similar. There are other answer/comments here that give other suggestions if you really think you need to be more specific.
add a comment |
I doubt that you need to do anything at all that you wouldn't do for any other paper or author. I think self-citation is really only an issue when it is overdone and/or no one else agrees with you.
But if they (hopefully) believe what you are writing at present, they don't need to be "warned" that you also wrote something similar or supporting in the past.
If you normally say "Smith in [3] says,..." and you are Jones, then you can say "Jones in [5] implies..." or similar. There are other answer/comments here that give other suggestions if you really think you need to be more specific.
I doubt that you need to do anything at all that you wouldn't do for any other paper or author. I think self-citation is really only an issue when it is overdone and/or no one else agrees with you.
But if they (hopefully) believe what you are writing at present, they don't need to be "warned" that you also wrote something similar or supporting in the past.
If you normally say "Smith in [3] says,..." and you are Jones, then you can say "Jones in [5] implies..." or similar. There are other answer/comments here that give other suggestions if you really think you need to be more specific.
edited 6 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
BuffyBuffy
54.4k16175268
54.4k16175268
add a comment |
add a comment |
"In previous work [1-3] the author showed that ..."
or
"We have recently shown that ... [1-3]"
With phrases like that I never had a complaint from a peer-reviewer.
New contributor
The wording suggests that in [123], I did all the work and the other authors didn't really contribute much.
– einpoklum
6 hours ago
1
It is easy enough to use the variation: "In previous work [1-3] the author, et. al., showed that ..."
– Buffy
6 hours ago
add a comment |
"In previous work [1-3] the author showed that ..."
or
"We have recently shown that ... [1-3]"
With phrases like that I never had a complaint from a peer-reviewer.
New contributor
The wording suggests that in [123], I did all the work and the other authors didn't really contribute much.
– einpoklum
6 hours ago
1
It is easy enough to use the variation: "In previous work [1-3] the author, et. al., showed that ..."
– Buffy
6 hours ago
add a comment |
"In previous work [1-3] the author showed that ..."
or
"We have recently shown that ... [1-3]"
With phrases like that I never had a complaint from a peer-reviewer.
New contributor
"In previous work [1-3] the author showed that ..."
or
"We have recently shown that ... [1-3]"
With phrases like that I never had a complaint from a peer-reviewer.
New contributor
edited 6 hours ago
299792458
2,68321435
2,68321435
New contributor
answered 7 hours ago
lordylordy
651
651
New contributor
New contributor
The wording suggests that in [123], I did all the work and the other authors didn't really contribute much.
– einpoklum
6 hours ago
1
It is easy enough to use the variation: "In previous work [1-3] the author, et. al., showed that ..."
– Buffy
6 hours ago
add a comment |
The wording suggests that in [123], I did all the work and the other authors didn't really contribute much.
– einpoklum
6 hours ago
1
It is easy enough to use the variation: "In previous work [1-3] the author, et. al., showed that ..."
– Buffy
6 hours ago
The wording suggests that in [123], I did all the work and the other authors didn't really contribute much.
– einpoklum
6 hours ago
The wording suggests that in [123], I did all the work and the other authors didn't really contribute much.
– einpoklum
6 hours ago
1
1
It is easy enough to use the variation: "In previous work [1-3] the author, et. al., showed that ..."
– Buffy
6 hours ago
It is easy enough to use the variation: "In previous work [1-3] the author, et. al., showed that ..."
– Buffy
6 hours ago
add a comment |
One of the authors, together with others, has done something of note in [123].
A, B and C also claim this and that [123].
That said, you can probably leave the warning off the paper. Anyone interested in the claim will check the supporting source for credibility, or at least they ought to. If you do not believe in the claim, qualify the claim as is relevant for how credible you think it is: Call it a conjecture or guess, write that the claim has been suggested or is worth investigating, or whatever you feel is true. Then write that the other paper (also) supports the claim.
add a comment |
One of the authors, together with others, has done something of note in [123].
A, B and C also claim this and that [123].
That said, you can probably leave the warning off the paper. Anyone interested in the claim will check the supporting source for credibility, or at least they ought to. If you do not believe in the claim, qualify the claim as is relevant for how credible you think it is: Call it a conjecture or guess, write that the claim has been suggested or is worth investigating, or whatever you feel is true. Then write that the other paper (also) supports the claim.
add a comment |
One of the authors, together with others, has done something of note in [123].
A, B and C also claim this and that [123].
That said, you can probably leave the warning off the paper. Anyone interested in the claim will check the supporting source for credibility, or at least they ought to. If you do not believe in the claim, qualify the claim as is relevant for how credible you think it is: Call it a conjecture or guess, write that the claim has been suggested or is worth investigating, or whatever you feel is true. Then write that the other paper (also) supports the claim.
One of the authors, together with others, has done something of note in [123].
A, B and C also claim this and that [123].
That said, you can probably leave the warning off the paper. Anyone interested in the claim will check the supporting source for credibility, or at least they ought to. If you do not believe in the claim, qualify the claim as is relevant for how credible you think it is: Call it a conjecture or guess, write that the claim has been suggested or is worth investigating, or whatever you feel is true. Then write that the other paper (also) supports the claim.
answered 6 hours ago
Tommi BranderTommi Brander
5,00721634
5,00721634
add a comment |
add a comment |
I would like to "warn" my readers to take the citation with a grain of salt, as I am relying on what is at least partly, if not mostly, my own perspective or my own arguments elsewhere.
Unless there’s something specific about the context that you’re not telling us that makes this a good idea, in general I see no need for such a warning. Your readers are capable of thinking for themselves. They will look at the citation, see what it says, think about it (taking various pieces of information into account, including the knowledge of who wrote it), and decide if they agree with it. The fact that it’s a self-citation is basically irrelevant from the point of view of the way you should be presenting things. Treat it as a citation to any other work by any other person.
At the same time, I don't want it to sound like I'm boasting about being an author; nor that I'm making a stronger pitch of the cited paper; nor that I'm disparaging it somehow.
Those are somewhat valid concerns, but at the end of the day again my recommendation is to write whatever you would write if the cited paper was written by anyone else: if it deserves to be praised, praise it, if it deserves to be disparaged, disparage it, and if you think it should be referred to using a neutral tone, then mention it in a neutral tone. If you are acting in good faith and aren’t saying something that’s obviously over the top and ego-driven, reasonable people will not find fault with what you wrote.
If you're saying that there is already some work on a subject, but it's just your (and your collaborators') work, it's different than saying that there's community interest, for example.
– einpoklum
45 mins ago
@einpoklum agreed.
– Dan Romik
20 mins ago
add a comment |
I would like to "warn" my readers to take the citation with a grain of salt, as I am relying on what is at least partly, if not mostly, my own perspective or my own arguments elsewhere.
Unless there’s something specific about the context that you’re not telling us that makes this a good idea, in general I see no need for such a warning. Your readers are capable of thinking for themselves. They will look at the citation, see what it says, think about it (taking various pieces of information into account, including the knowledge of who wrote it), and decide if they agree with it. The fact that it’s a self-citation is basically irrelevant from the point of view of the way you should be presenting things. Treat it as a citation to any other work by any other person.
At the same time, I don't want it to sound like I'm boasting about being an author; nor that I'm making a stronger pitch of the cited paper; nor that I'm disparaging it somehow.
Those are somewhat valid concerns, but at the end of the day again my recommendation is to write whatever you would write if the cited paper was written by anyone else: if it deserves to be praised, praise it, if it deserves to be disparaged, disparage it, and if you think it should be referred to using a neutral tone, then mention it in a neutral tone. If you are acting in good faith and aren’t saying something that’s obviously over the top and ego-driven, reasonable people will not find fault with what you wrote.
If you're saying that there is already some work on a subject, but it's just your (and your collaborators') work, it's different than saying that there's community interest, for example.
– einpoklum
45 mins ago
@einpoklum agreed.
– Dan Romik
20 mins ago
add a comment |
I would like to "warn" my readers to take the citation with a grain of salt, as I am relying on what is at least partly, if not mostly, my own perspective or my own arguments elsewhere.
Unless there’s something specific about the context that you’re not telling us that makes this a good idea, in general I see no need for such a warning. Your readers are capable of thinking for themselves. They will look at the citation, see what it says, think about it (taking various pieces of information into account, including the knowledge of who wrote it), and decide if they agree with it. The fact that it’s a self-citation is basically irrelevant from the point of view of the way you should be presenting things. Treat it as a citation to any other work by any other person.
At the same time, I don't want it to sound like I'm boasting about being an author; nor that I'm making a stronger pitch of the cited paper; nor that I'm disparaging it somehow.
Those are somewhat valid concerns, but at the end of the day again my recommendation is to write whatever you would write if the cited paper was written by anyone else: if it deserves to be praised, praise it, if it deserves to be disparaged, disparage it, and if you think it should be referred to using a neutral tone, then mention it in a neutral tone. If you are acting in good faith and aren’t saying something that’s obviously over the top and ego-driven, reasonable people will not find fault with what you wrote.
I would like to "warn" my readers to take the citation with a grain of salt, as I am relying on what is at least partly, if not mostly, my own perspective or my own arguments elsewhere.
Unless there’s something specific about the context that you’re not telling us that makes this a good idea, in general I see no need for such a warning. Your readers are capable of thinking for themselves. They will look at the citation, see what it says, think about it (taking various pieces of information into account, including the knowledge of who wrote it), and decide if they agree with it. The fact that it’s a self-citation is basically irrelevant from the point of view of the way you should be presenting things. Treat it as a citation to any other work by any other person.
At the same time, I don't want it to sound like I'm boasting about being an author; nor that I'm making a stronger pitch of the cited paper; nor that I'm disparaging it somehow.
Those are somewhat valid concerns, but at the end of the day again my recommendation is to write whatever you would write if the cited paper was written by anyone else: if it deserves to be praised, praise it, if it deserves to be disparaged, disparage it, and if you think it should be referred to using a neutral tone, then mention it in a neutral tone. If you are acting in good faith and aren’t saying something that’s obviously over the top and ego-driven, reasonable people will not find fault with what you wrote.
answered 1 hour ago
Dan RomikDan Romik
87k22189285
87k22189285
If you're saying that there is already some work on a subject, but it's just your (and your collaborators') work, it's different than saying that there's community interest, for example.
– einpoklum
45 mins ago
@einpoklum agreed.
– Dan Romik
20 mins ago
add a comment |
If you're saying that there is already some work on a subject, but it's just your (and your collaborators') work, it's different than saying that there's community interest, for example.
– einpoklum
45 mins ago
@einpoklum agreed.
– Dan Romik
20 mins ago
If you're saying that there is already some work on a subject, but it's just your (and your collaborators') work, it's different than saying that there's community interest, for example.
– einpoklum
45 mins ago
If you're saying that there is already some work on a subject, but it's just your (and your collaborators') work, it's different than saying that there's community interest, for example.
– einpoklum
45 mins ago
@einpoklum agreed.
– Dan Romik
20 mins ago
@einpoklum agreed.
– Dan Romik
20 mins ago
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%2f127008%2fwhats-an-appropriate-phrasing-of-a-caveat-about-self-citation%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
Could you write it like "we did this in [123]"?
– Guest
8 hours ago
@Guest: The "we" in [123] is myself and some others; but what I'm writing now is just me.
– einpoklum
7 hours ago
4
The citation format is such that you don't see any names — So don't do that. One simple fix (which I strongly recommend for other reasons) is to give people explicit credit in the text. "The previous best algorithm for factoring roosters, discovered independently by Knuth [42] and Turing [222], was recently surpassed by Rozenberg [123]."
– JeffE
7 hours ago
Following from @Guest, alternatives include: In collaboration with X & Y, I ... [123] (you can drop "In collaboration" if you like) or Myself et al. [123] (particularly useful if you were the first author, but still works if you weren't).
– user2768
7 hours ago
@JeffE: The style of using people's names in the text or in citation keys is essentially unheard of in my discipline.
– einpoklum
43 mins ago