Sometimes it so happens that an author knows confidently through other published literature about certain publications and its content. They cite them even without checking in original (they could not go through in original in spite of their best effort) because they feel that they need to be cited; without citation of such publications their paper would be incomplete. Many also state: Not seen in original. I do not blame them because they have told the truth. However, one should definitely try to see the references in original because it cannot be guaranteed that data gathered through secondary sources are always fully correct.

I believe that it is very difficult to verify, therefore is not the main task for editors and reviewers. But such unethical behavior of the authors will sooner or later destroy their scientific reputation.

Thank you Prof Dr Subir Bandyopadhyay and Dr Serhii Nazarovets for your valuable suggestions. As, Prof Dr Bandyopadhyay expressed, I agree that when you go about your own citation and if you also go through the text how it is cited, you may notice this. Sometimes, you can also notice about your students how they cite.

I was editing the MS of a write-up yesterday.

I saw one reference given below:

M. VenkatRamana, P.V. Prasanna& P. Venu 2011. Hybanthusstellarioides (Domin) P.I. Forst. (Violaceae), A New Record for India. Rheedea 21(1): 10-12.

It was available in RG:Article M. VenkatRamana, P.V. Prasanna& P. Venu 2011. Hybanthusstell...

Hybanthus stellarioides (Violaceae), a new record for India

I consulted with the author and he told that he took the title from a secondary source and did not consult the original paper.

So one should always try to see the original publication instead of depending on secondary sources.

It is not a good practice but it depends.

For example when you attach a name to any plant, sometimes you already know the identification is correct so you dont see the original description.

Secondly, lets say you want to know how many plant names were published in 2017. You will go to a checklist and search for 2017 and assuming that the checklist is correct, you can cite the number.

Is it a appropriate way of citing? NO

What problems does it invites? Depends as above but of course you have less knowledge without reading any original papers.

Why do people do this? Less time taking.

How should we discourage for this types of tendency? Ask them to read.

This actually doesnt qualify under Plagiarism but of course it qualifies to be poorly cited manuscript. You can pick up any of my manuscript (I usually cite lot of references) and trust me, I read all those, partly or fully, depending on need.

It is very-very bad practice because it increases the quote without really analyzing the work, which is going to be valorized.

And this is how the students no longer think,

And becoming a researcher they do not usually make a summary of the article, and propose the revision of certain points ... etc.

Thank you Prof Dr Subir Bandyopadhyay sharing the example of the result citing paper without approaching the original paper. It shows citation may not appropriately acknowledge the right paper too.

Thank you Dr Pankaj Kumar, Dr Marpha Telepova-Texier for participating in this discussion. Your views are very important for me as well as other junior scholar too.

Regards

Hom

Dear colleagues,

Thank you so much for your valuable thoughts.

Dr Mutasem Z. Bani-Fwaz ,

Dr Marpha Telepova-Texier ,

Dr Pankaj Kumar,

Dr Subir Bandyopadhyay,

Dr Serhii Nazarovets,