When you read an article which was written in 1980s or even in the early 1990s, you usually found that the authors cite no more than 10 references (sometimes no references at all). In 2017 when read an article you may be faced with hundred of cited references and even when you write a paper you must cite huge number of paper. Will this affect our creativity? or it is a normal path for our evolution.
Good observation and question! I don't know if accessing a lot of research information hurts our creativity. I really appreciate to be able to access a lot of information and process it in various ways, that makes me creative (personal internal experience). Although it is a sorting hassle to have floods of information, it is better than to miss relevant information.
On the other hand, I also think that people cite too much. One may see that clearly when looking at papers citing ones own research, which is nice in itself. But do they seem to really have read my paper? What are they using my paper as support for? Do I like that? Did they really get my point, or do they just use me for something extremely general? Did I really claim to "proove" what they said I did? When I look at citing research like this, I easliy get depressed. Researchers seems to be browsing and cherrypicking a lot. That is not helpful for anybody. The cited authors do not often complain though - they got another citation. So we are not in a good spiral. More artificial intelligence in databases or Google Scholar will allow us to cite a lot lot more in no time at all. Or we just click a button "make references to my text". This citation inflation has to be moderated in some way. So I share your worries.
You're right. The best paper is one with no reference at all because it shows that the research is innovative and has no precedent lol. I think Isaac Newton's papers were like that :)
Good observation and question! I don't know if accessing a lot of research information hurts our creativity. I really appreciate to be able to access a lot of information and process it in various ways, that makes me creative (personal internal experience). Although it is a sorting hassle to have floods of information, it is better than to miss relevant information.
On the other hand, I also think that people cite too much. One may see that clearly when looking at papers citing ones own research, which is nice in itself. But do they seem to really have read my paper? What are they using my paper as support for? Do I like that? Did they really get my point, or do they just use me for something extremely general? Did I really claim to "proove" what they said I did? When I look at citing research like this, I easliy get depressed. Researchers seems to be browsing and cherrypicking a lot. That is not helpful for anybody. The cited authors do not often complain though - they got another citation. So we are not in a good spiral. More artificial intelligence in databases or Google Scholar will allow us to cite a lot lot more in no time at all. Or we just click a button "make references to my text". This citation inflation has to be moderated in some way. So I share your worries.
Definitely not a normal part of our evolution. Have you noticed that the hundreds of citations in research paper are mostly copy-paste jobs? I have serious reservations about the kind of research that is being published these days.
Interesting question and convincing answers ...
With regard the creativity and innovation may be as a result of the drawbacks or disadvantages of previous methods. Therefore, we may mention all the previous papers or work when we present a creative method.
Dear Andres, thank you very much for your answer, I share with you these ideas.
Best Regards
Ashraf
Dear Dinesh, thank you very much for your answer. Yes, you are absolutely right, when you ask some researchers why you cite this paper, the answer is that many papers have cited this.
Best Regrads
Ashraf
Interesting discussion-however as I understand, any reference cited by you would serve the purpose of either :-
- substantiating your own observations with reference to similar systems/organisms/conditions/methods (or differing in one or more of these)
- stating how the said observations in the other paper that you are citing differs form yours & why it could be so
- comparing your results vis-a-vis those in the reference cited & evolving newer hypotheses that could form part of future studies.
Essentially the more the number of references cited improves the analytical perspective of a given work published by you & need not be seen either an impediment to creativity or to mean that one's work is nothing unique.
Definitely references should be cited with these objectives & not 'copied/pasted' or 'cherrypicked' for mere increase in numbers to be added to the list.
Dear Marinalini, Thank you for contributing to the discussion. I totally agree with the three points you mentioned, "Citation should based on specific object".
Best Regards
Ashraf
I think this is a very good development as more ideas will be substantiated with references. Surely, you cannot check every single idea cited, but that's what the editors and proof readers do for a journal/publication. Sure, you can indeed argue that this 'new' standard slows things down, which may have a negative impact on your creativity, however, it ensures that your ideas are accurately based on an existing body of work. It's a natural process of course, for me more citation simply suggests that the author has read more in the body of work.
This is always good, as such authors are able to better make comparative analyses of their assertions.
Dear Magdalena, thank you very much for your answer.
Best Regards
Ashraf
Excellent notes !! I always have the same question .
I think one of the possible answers that, during that time authors did not find any relevant and available published/ or non- published work.
Further point, I always notice that what we search currently in developing countries have been searched during1980s or even before in developed world. !
Your question has different levels, I do think. Yes, scientific creativity is changing fast, it is a mental rally between digestible quantity and producible quality. This mass production leads finally to academic regurgitation, over-competition and a full loss of originality (a non-creative destruction of scientific originality). So, new standards of scientific originality and writing will emerge, which need to integrate exact scientific methodology, research (net) work and information (documentation) gathering. The creative scientist himself/herself cannot be abolished, because her/his talent is needed to solve the mounting problems of humanity and truth.
Technology is a multi edge tool. Technology allows easier access to more information which allows new ideas and innovation too occur faster. It can and does allow easier repression or enforcing a status quo. So, technology is not the destroyer. The destroyer is the people who actively inhibit the innovation. Left to themselves, humans innovate to solve problems. In the long term, the problem creative impetus comes from nature or rather changes in nature - droughts, temperature changes, etc. These changes then create resource quests (wars). And the war goes to the society with the best innovators.
Modern world is dominated by innovative ideas and new technology, but innovation alone cannot facilitate success.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/273841
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Innovation is a "new idea, creative thoughts, new imaginations in form of device or method". However, innovation is often also viewed as the application of better solutions that meet new requirements, unarticulated needs, or existing market needs. Such innovation takes place through the provision of more-effective products, processes, services, technologies, or business models that are made available to markets, governments and society. An innovation is something original and more effective and, as a consequence, new, that "breaks into" the market or society. Innovation is related to, but not the same as, invention, as innovation is more apt to involve the practical implementation of an invention (i.e. new/improved ability) to make a meaningful impact in the market or society, and not all innovations require an invention. Innovation often [quantify] manifests itself via the engineering process, when the problem being solved is of a technical or scientific nature. The opposite of innovation is exnovation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication