Page 1 of 1
Eckmann 1987 vs 1995
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2024 19:26
by Norbert
Really strange situation:
Since a few months I observe that many papers cite now the reprint
instead of the original work
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
Re: Eckmann 1987 vs 1995
Posted: Tue Oct 1, 2024 17:11
by Norbert
This phenomenon is obviously caused by Google Scholar:
https://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=%22 ... Systems%22. It does not show all versions of this reference, only the 1995 version. The complete list is available when clicking for "more results".
https://scholar.google.de/scholar?clust ... as_sdt=0,5
Re: Eckmann 1987 vs 1995
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2024 07:32
by maxie890
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
Re: Eckmann 1987 vs 1995
Posted: Mon Dec 2, 2024 11:53
by Norbert
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
Yes, I completely agree!