A Pragmatic View of Citations

ABSTRACT

Citations are fundamental in giving acknowledgment where credit is due. This article explains when citations are arguably necessary, such as attributing ideas, backing claims, and distinguishing works. This article also discusses instances where citations are arguably unnecessary, including original ideas, common knowledge, general observations, and personal experience and expertise. Ultimately, this article advocates for a pragmatic approach to citations in all forms of official or published work.

KEYWORDS:

• Citation
• credit
• ethics
• integrity

Introduction

Citation is the practice of giving credit to others in one’s work. This practice resonates with deontological ethics (Kant, 1785), making citation a duty. However, one should not carry out this duty blindly – an important point to stress given the rise of plagiarism accusations and retractions (Van Noorden, 2023), causing (some, if not, many) people to “cite just to be safe.” Citing blindly—i.e., citing without understanding why one is citing – diminishes critical thinking by encouraging superficial engagement with sources. This undermines integrity and quality by fostering a culture of compliance rather than genuine acknowledgment, understanding, and use of others’ work.

Citation may also be a subject of ethical debate. For instance, let us consider self-citation as a case. The COPE Council (2019) offers legitimate reasons for self-citation. For authors, self-citing previous work is essential to provide a comprehensive view of an ongoing program, ensuring the continuity of the program’s narrative and avoiding allegations of self-plagiarism. For editors, self-citation to their own work or the work published in their outlet can be appropriate if it enhances the relevance and quality of the author’s work, though it must be suggested carefully to avoid conflicts of interest. For reviewers, self-citation to their own work may be recommended if it genuinely improves the author’s work due to their specialized knowledge. In all these cases, self-citation, when used judiciously, contributes to the integrity and quality of official or published work.

This, however, raises the question of how much self-citation is acceptable. What if there are genuinely many relevant sources, and they are indeed the best ones to cite? Is citing one self-reference acceptable? What about five, 10, or 20? Should we subject the quantity of self-citations to political correctness, or should we maintain a stance in line with the basic principle of relevance? If one relevant self-citation is acceptable, then five, 10, or 20 relevant ones should arguably be as well. This ongoing debate challenges us to preserve the fundamental principle of citation – giving credit where credit is due. It is because of this challenge that this article endeavors to discuss a pragmatic view of citations, covering when citations are arguably necessary and unnecessary. The emphasis on “arguably” acknowledges that citation practices are not governed by strict rules but are subject to context and interpretation (relevance).

When are citations arguably necessary

Citations arguably play a pivotal role in providing the foundation for credibility (whose support) and transparency (whose knowledge), wherein citation contributes to credibility by showing there is support, and transparency by showing whose knowledge it is (cited means others, uncited means own). Understanding when to cite is essential to uphold the integrity and quality of official or published work. This section discusses the key instances where citations are arguably necessary.

Attributing ideas

Citations are arguably crucial when attributing specific ideas, concepts, or theories to their original creators. For instance, acknowledging the theory of reasoned action (TRA) coined by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), the theory of planned behavior (TPB) developed by Ajzen (1991), or the theory of behavioral control (TBC) proposed by Lim and Weissmann (2023) ensures that credit is given to the intellectual pioneers who formulated these foundational ideas. This not only honors their contributions but also provides readers with the context needed to understand their evolution. Proper attribution helps maintain record, allowing others to trace the development of ideas, concepts, or theories, and build upon them accurately.

Backing claims

When making claims, especially those that involve data or facts, citations are arguably necessary to support these assertions. For example, stating that “people worldwide are living longer” is strengthened by citing the World Health Organization (2022). Similarly, claiming that “one in six people in the world will be aged 60 years or over by 2030” requires citation of a relevant report. Such citations provide evidence that the claims are based on reliable and verifiable sources, enhancing the credibility of the work. They also allow readers to verify the information and explore it further if they wish. This is particularly important with the rise of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) (Lim et al., 2023) and the infodemic of disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation (Lim, 2024). Even when citing, we should always strive to go with the best source available, such as choosing to cite a top-rated journal over a predatory journal, to ensure the reliability and validity of the information presented.

Distinguishing works

Citations are arguably essential when distinguishing the present work from prior ones. Acknowledging the existing body of work and highlighting how the present one adds to or differs from it safeguards against self-plagiarism by clearly disclosing how the new work diverges from previous works. This practice also addresses concerns of redundancy by ensuring each piece of work presents a fresh perspective. Citing one’s own previous work or that of one’s affiliated group shows the continuity and progression of an ongoing program. Additionally, citing relevant works from target outlets or other sources situates the present work within the existing discourse, much like joining a conversation at a social gathering where one listens to what has already been discussed before contributing new ideas. Failing to acknowledge previous discussions can come across as rude and uninformed. This can potentially lead to unnecessary repetition of already known information. Notably, proper citation advances conversations on the topic by building on existing knowledge and directing the focus of additions toward new and interesting perspectives that enhance the “interestingness” of the contributions to the conversation (Hollebeek et al., 2024; MacInnis, 2011). This approach not only respects and builds upon the intellectual efforts of others but also enriches the depth and quality of the present one.

When are citations arguably unnecessary

While citations are arguably crucial in many contexts, there are instances where they may arguably be unnecessary. Understanding these situations helps maintain the balance between giving credit and recognizing one’s contributions. This section discusses key instances where citations are arguably unnecessary.

Original ideas

Citations are arguably not needed when presenting original ideas or interpretations that have been independently developed. When an author introduces a new perspective, it stands as their unique contribution to the field. For example, the sustainability pyramid proposed by Lim (2022) scaffolds the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability. This perspective, derived through critical thinking, establishes this conception without attributing it to previous works, though citations are used to support the case for this conception (e.g., Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, sustainability crisis). The same can be observed through the concept aging in a place of choice (Lim & Bowman, 2022), which extends the root concept aging in place (Golant, 1984). This allows authors to take full credit for their innovative thinking and ensures clarity regarding the originality of the content.

Common knowledge

Common knowledge, such as general information or widely recognized facts that do not require specific attribution, arguably does not necessitate citations. For instance, stating that “the Earth orbits the Sun” or “water boils at 100 degrees Celsius” are examples of information that is universally accepted and easily verifiable, thus arguably not requiring any citation. This helps avoid overloading the conversation (text) with unnecessary references and keeps the focus on more significant contributions. This practice is most common in outlets like books, news articles, and magazines, where the emphasis is often on readability and engagement rather than exhaustive documentation. Noteworthily, if this practice is acceptable for these outlets, then it should arguably be acceptable for all forms of official or published work. Otherwise, we arguably risk engaging in unnecessary discrimination.

General observations

General observations or statements that are broadly accepted and do not stem from specific sources arguably do not need citations. For example, noting that “technology is advancing rapidly” or “people experience more cognitive and physical challenges as they grow older” are general observations that are commonly understood and thus arguably do not require attribution to a particular source. This allows the author to articulate broadly recognized trends without the need for excessive referencing.

Personal experience and expertise

Citations are arguably not necessary when an idea is developed through personal experience and expertise. For instance, when an individual comprehends a concept, such as sampling techniques, critical thinking enables them to extrapolate the pros and cons of different sampling methods independently. While this idea may not be entirely unique, it is derived from personal understanding and analysis, which may also align with common knowledge. This approach aligns with the 3Es of expertise, experience, and exposure outlined by Kraus et al. (2022), emphasizing the value of personal insights in generating knowledge. When an author shares personal anecdotes or reflections based on their experience and expertise, these contributions, although possibly not unique, are arguably inherently original to or self-developed by the author and do not rely on external sources. This adds a personal touch to the work and provides valuable perspectives without the need for citation.

Conclusion

Citations are fundamental in giving acknowledgment where credit is due, enhancing both credibility and transparency. However, the application of citations is not always straightforward and requires a pragmatic approach that considers context and interprets relevance. While citations are arguably necessary for attributing ideas, backing claims, and distinguishing works, they may arguably be unnecessary for original ideas, common knowledge, general observations, and personal experience and expertise. This balance ensures proper credit is given while also recognizing the value of individual contributions and insights. Extending past editorials on citations, such as Lu’s (2022) discussion of ethical and unethical citation practices, this article’s pragmatic approach seeks to contribute to informed and improved citation practices as a measure of impact, as emphasized by Garfield (1979). Understanding when to arguably cite and when it is arguably unnecessary helps maintain the integrity and quality of all forms of official or published work. A pragmatic approach to citations fosters a culture of genuine acknowledgment, understanding, and use of others’ work, while avoiding the pitfalls of both over-citation and under-citation. Importantly, this article does not encourage citation manipulation, and the author univocally supports scholars like Mehregan (2022), who advocate for vigilance against potential manipulation in citations and referencing.