Since a few months I observe that many papers cite now the reprint
Eckmann et al: Recurrence Plots of Dynamical Systems, In: Turbulence, Strange Attractors and Chaos, World Scientific, Singapore, 1995, https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812833709_0030
It is hardly understandable because the EPL paper is by far much more accessible than the paper in the World Scientific publisher's book. I suspect that the authors simply copied the reference instead of actually owning it (and even not having read it).
Norbert, this phenomenon is unfortunately quite common especially when citing textbooks or article collections. It might stem from laziness, it's easier to copy a citation from another publication.Note that the 1995 version provides some clarifications but is still largely based on the 1987 work. I understand the frustration because the 1987 EPL paper is indeed more accessible. Perhaps reviewers should emphasize that citing original sources is critical?Sadly this situation highlights how "ctrl+c, ctrl+v" sometimes wins over thoroughness
maxie890 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 07:32
Norbert, this phenomenon is unfortunately quite common especially when citing textbooks or article collections. It might stem from laziness, it's easier to copy a citation from another publication.Note that the 1995 version provides some clarifications but is still largely based on the 1987 work. I understand the frustration because the 1987 EPL paper is indeed more accessible. Perhaps reviewers should emphasize that citing original sources is critical?Sadly this situation highlights how "ctrl+c, ctrl+v" sometimes wins over thoroughness
