To my eyes there are two solutions to your problem:

1) Avoid second hand quotation. Look up the primary source and quote it directly. If it is important, mention how you found the article you quote.

2) If the primary source is not available, explain that XYZ quotes A who says: ... Make sure that the secondary quote can sustain your argument.

To my eyes there are two solutions to your problem:

1) Avoid second hand quotation. Look up the primary source and quote it directly. If it is important, mention how you found the article you quote.

2) If the primary source is not available, explain that XYZ quotes A who says: ... Make sure that the secondary quote can sustain your argument.

Thanks Charles :) 

Ashok, Charles is spot on. The rule is to always cite the original author (e.g. body of work) whenever possible. If the original is unavailable, either substitute another reference or state in the body of text that "So-and-so cites Whoever (1943) in saying...". The other trap is citing laymen. Local historians often write volumes about people and places without providing any citation as to where they got the information. In those cases, you should try to corroborate those unreferenced works with at least two other sources that have written on the same subject AND did not use the uncited work as their main source.

In addition to the very good advice given by Charles and James, you can always use "qtd in" (quoted in) by writing, for example: Francis Bellamy wrote concerning the United States of America, that it is an indivisible nation with "liberty and justice for all" (qtd. in Calheiros, 2014, 18). And of course you would need to subsequently reference the source in accordance with your chosen format, such as: Calheiros, J. A. (2014). "Agape and its Impact on Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement." Valdosta State University. 

thanks all of you...quite enlightening :) 

Hello Ashok

You obviously are either a deep researcher or one who aims for perfection in his work. First thing I'd like to tell you is that I feel you encumber yourself too much with the whole referencing thing. You have a very critical mind no doubt but it may not always be helpful. I am not advising for you to do careless academic work but please it may be good if you make your academic work less complicated. 

In academic writing it is the author(s) who are mentioned in the in-text citations, not the works themselves, unless the work is a seminal work that needed special mention alongside its authors. Finally I believe you may not necessarily have to look up every conclusion made by any author to make sure it is the author's original statement. Good scholars will indicate whether it is their original thinking or not or a paraphrased version by acknowledging their source, and when they do not specify, why kill yourself trying to verify their statements for them??? But that is not to say that you should become laid-back about critical sound academic work. Cheers.

Chkezie, thanks for your input with a different thoughts. However, I do not agree with every point mentioned in your mail. Will surely count the rest.:)

Chikezie, thanks for your input with a different thoughts. However, I do not agree with every point mentioned in your mail. Will surely count the rest.:)

I always prefer to cite by author's name. Always cite the original paper instead of referring to a monograph / review paper written by some one else. In this way, the original author gets the credit for citation.

Thank you Girish sir. Appreciated and will follow it :) 

Dear Ashok,  To write an original article  you should go to the original reference. You have to read that reference and formulate statement according  to the concept that you have obtained from that article. In case you make citations  of already cited  statements, this will be regarded as plagiarism which is unacceptable by most journals.

Ashok, contrary to some thinking, providing citations in the body of a text, be it a technical report or a research paper, serves several purposes. First, I could write pages on prehistoric cultural stages in the southern U.S., but I was not born with that knowledge, thus I have to show where I acquired that knowledge. The same for statistics. You have to cite who came up with the statistical model(s) that you used, if for no other reason than so your reader can check your formulas or methods against the originals. Second, if you are making an argument or statement, you should provide citations that are pro and/or con your position. In other words, you use references as a means of supporting your position/research, or refuting other works. Third, references show that you are aware of what has been done in that field of study. If you are writing a paper on the piezoelectric properties of exotic metals, you need to reference what other researchers have done and discovered, or that no other researcher has studied this aspect prior to your study. All of these reasons together show that you are not pulling your facts, methods, and conclusions out of thin air, but that they are based on, or you have considered, other works.

It is surprising (or perhaps not so surprising!) to occasionally see research cited incorrectly, e.g., the writer cites an article that you have read and therefore know is not related to the statement or even drawing the wrong conclusion from the original.

So I also agree with the position that you should always strive to read and cite primary sources (simply citing primary sources is not enough because you need to have read it to be confident it is relevant to the point you are trying to make.

Michael,

That is sage truth. A company I worked for had a citation of a citation in all of their archaeological reports for a certain region. I finally ran down the original work and it had nothing to do with the statement. The people whose secondary citation the company was using either gave the wrong page number or wrong author.

One of the guiding principles of science is, as given by the motto of the Royal Society of London, "Nullus in verbum" - "Nothing by another's word".

You write in your paper: "People live longer who have less sexual activity in life."

I, as the reader, immediately ask the question "How do you know that?"

You can answer that question in two ways.  You could describe evidence that you collected yourself - in which case, the method of your study should be described in enough detail for me to decide whether your results justify that conclusion, and allow me to relicate the study myself.

Or you can cite a paper describing evidence that somebody else collected.  If you cite A, you're creating extra work for me - I will look up A, then find I have to go to XYZ instead.

If you cite XYZ, it's your job to read XYZ and decide whether the evidence given there justifies that statement.  If it's just a sentence in XYZ's introduction, or if you haven't read XYZ yet, then you're not yet ready to write "People live longer who have less sexual activity in life." in your argument, because you don't yet have any reason to believe that it is true.