I am writing a manuscript dedicated to the classification of natural processes occurring worldwide. In this study, I create a composite model involving a classifier, i.e. a Neural Network model, that will be used to process the classification. The study discusses which variables, related to the observed natural processes, are more important for the classification procedure (e.g., weight matrices are described and discussed).

To explain the method, I briefly give an overview of machine learning (principles) in 3 sentences and relate it to my study. In addition, I also explain what are neural networks, and the explanation is made in the appendix (3 pages). For both, machine learning and neural network, I use a citation pointing directly to a book.

Is it preferable to leave a citation inside my manuscript so that the reviewer just takes a look at the cited book to understand how neural networks work, or can I explain the concept in the appendix (but in this case I use different citations for detailing the explanations)?

The scenario:

  • in an article, found a point/claim/fact that would fit/support perfectly a broader point I’m trying to construct (@Related works section)

The dilemma:

  • Whom to cite?
    • a) only the article in which I found the [whole] point/claim/synthesis
    • b) the original sources, the author cited during his construction of the point
    • c) both i.e. the complete paragraph or part of the paragraph that serves my purpose

Pros and cons:

  • a)
    • Pro: I pay proper respect to the author from whom I learnt about the sources/facts. + the article is the only source I really read
    • Con: I would have single reference to support the point, while in reality it there are several relevant sources (used by the author)
  • b)

    • Pro: I would provide the reader with deeper/direct references for further researching
    • Con: it is a form of plagiarism, as it would seem that it was me that read all the sources and drawn conclusion presented. The conclusion is not the issue, I discuss that particular point anyway (in my paper), but the first part bothers me: it wasn’t me that studied all that sources, but the author
  • c) seems to me as just solution but I’m not sure how it should be formulated so it is clear for reader what is reference (let it be: [1]) from the article and what (sub) references are just taken from the article (let them be: [1.a] [1.b])

Alternatively, (and this is what I would normally do):
– I follow his references, find the articles, read them and then use (some or all of) them together with other references (known to me from earlier research). The issue with such practice: too often there is no justification for referencing his article — and it seems not to be not right i.e. smells to me like a tiny plagiarism-sin.


The example:

….

To achieve the first goal, the crawler has to visit as many web sites as possible, and to achieve the second goal, the crawler has to
maintain the freshness of the previously visited web sites, which can
be achieved by re-visiting such web sites in a routinely manner. In
the following, the most frequently used re-visiting policies are
summarized: (1) Uniform policy: in this policy, the entire web sites
are downloaded at each visit (Bhute and Meshram, 2010; Pichler et al.,
2011; Leng et al., 2011; Sharma et al., 2012; Singh and Vikasn, 2014).
Although this approach enriches the databases, it requires a large
processing time. (2) Proportional policy: this policy is performed in
many ways, such as: • Downloading only the pages that have a rank more
than a threshold value specified by the crawler administrator (Bhute
and Meshram, 2010;)

From the article:

ALQARALEH, S., RAMADAN, O., & SALAMAH, M. (2015). Efficient watcher
based web crawler design. Aslib Journal of Information Management,
67(6), 663–686. http://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-02-2015-0019

In my article I want to explain/define these two policies, together with his remarks, my own remarks, and, potentially, to expand (support) it with other sources.


I’m not sure if I formulated the issue properly, so please, do not hesitate to demand clarification. Any comments/thoughts are welcome, even if you are not sure what would be the right way.

Thanks in advance!

I have been researching a specific topic in computer science for a couple of years now and a well established professor and his students have recently published a couple of publications in that topic too. In their work they do reference the well known and well cited previous work that basically everyone in that topic references, but I have noticed that they ignore (don’t reference) a couple of publications that are doing essentially what they are publishing about, i.e. extremely related work. And I am wondering even though there is a gap of a couple of years between the work they have published and the available previous literature how did they miss referencing the relevant previous work? Was it done intentionally or did they just do a hasty job at finding more recent related work?

Either way my main concern here is if there is anything that can be done to remedy the situation now, since the paper has already been published?

I am writing an article on a historical event chronicled by Plutarch and translated by the Harvard University Press and have used certain ideas and facts from his writings in my own article by summarizing some of his statements and combining it with my own ideas. I have a link to the writings that I have referred to at the end of the article, but I was wondering if I needed to add in any in text citations to give proper credit to him and translators of his work.

I have been researching a specific topic in computer science for couple of years now and a well established professor and his students have recently published couple of publications in that topic too. In their work they do reference the well known and well cited previous work that basically everyone in that topic references, but I have noticed that they ignore (don’t reference) couple of publications that are doing essentially what they are publishing about, i.e. extremely related work. And I am wondering even though there are couple of years gap between the work they have published and the available previous literature how did they missed referencing relevant previous work? Was it done intentionally or did they just do a hasty job at finding more recent related work?

Either way my main concern here is there anything that can be done to remedy the situation now, since the paper has already been published?

I am working in a sub-field of computer science (deep learning), more specifically a particular application of LSTMs to learn simple functions. My work is building on the work of another researcher to an extent that I am using the same model, parameters and problem definition. I am writing a research paper based on my findings.

My work is different in the sense that I am introducing some different concepts from another area and trying to make a generalisation about the very nature of ANNs (using his work as an intermediary). And since his work is the only such publication till now, I am taking some things directly in my work eg. Problem Definition or Model.

So the question is whether it will count as plagiarism? If yes then how can I circumvent it as I have to write many things as it is, there’s no other way to get around that as I am using them as it is.

I have a document where I cite an paper as (West, 2000) multiple times.

In my EndNote library I have another paper by the same author (but different co-authors) written the same year. It has happened a few times where I have updated the references, and all of a sudden, all the citations have switched to citing the other paper which I had never referenced. It shows up as (West & Brown, 2000).

How is this possible? I wonder if it might be a result of switching between computers. I have a desktop and a laptop, both of which have EndNote libraries synced to them. If this is a glitch on EndNote’s part, it’s a very bad one. Anyone have an idea about it?