You can approach this issue in two ways. The reader of an article goes through the list of references on the understanding that every reference cited in the paper has been seen by the authors. As mentioned by you, you may have noticed an important source of information quoted in a document. You should try to trace out the original and read it, if you want to use the information for your work. However, if all your attempts to trace out the original fails; and still you feel that it is an important statement, view, or finding, you can quote the reference in an indirect way as given in the example below:

Original script

“Biological invasions have been responsible for at least 3 of the 24 known extinctions of endangered species in the USA (Schmitz and Simberloff, 1997)”

(Schmitz, D.C. and Simberloff, D. 1997. Biological invasions: A growing threat. Issues Sci. Technol. 13: 33–40)

After paraphrasing

Schmitz and Simberloff (1997) states that in the USA, minimum 3 of the 24 reported extinctions of endangered species is because of biological invasions.

The above information is part of a review by Holzmueller and Jose (2009). It is unethical to write as given above even after paraphrasing unless you have seen the original paper by Schmitz and Simberloff (1997). It is better you write as shown below:

Schmitz and Simberloff (1997) cited by Holzmueller and Jose (2009) states that in the USA, minimum 3 of the 24 reported extinctions of endangered species is because of biological invasions.

In the example, Holzmueller and Jose (2009) is responsible for what Schmitz and Simberloff (1997) reported. You shall then list Holzmueller and Jose (2009) instead of Schmitz and Simberloff (1997) in the list of references. This is a better practice instead of pretending that you have seen the original paper of Schmitz and Simberloff (1997). This is called a secondary citation.

(Holzmueller, E.J. and Jose, S.2009. Invasive plant conundrum: What makes the aliens so successful? J. Tropic. Agric. 47 (1-2): 18-29).

Hi,

Suppose you read a book by Xiu (2001) [a completely made-up book for the purpose of this discussion], and either read one page (page 365), one section (Section 6.3), or, let's say, just a theorem (Theorem 7.12) on page 67. Then you would at least have to cite the book as

Xiu (2001, page 365),

Xiu (2001, Section 6.3), and

Xiu (2001, Theorem 7.12).

The main thing to consider is that you should help a reader of your article to find the right passage of the book that you refer to. If you have only used one page of the book, such as the first on the list, then it is perfectly fine to just write "see Xiu (2001, page 365)".

To pinpoint your question on whether you need to read and understand the whole source: If you provide a precise citation such as the above ones then it is in general considered that you should have understood what it says there, yes.

Hello Adhikari,

How will you cite a source that you didn't read? You have to read what you cite in the correct way described by Patriksson. Reading about an event is unlike attending it, right?

You must read the cited book yourself particularly the introductory chapter(s) instead of depending on others.

Dear All,

Thank you very much for your explanations.

The key explanation of Dr. Michael is very informative and he has given

clear explanation of my doubt.

Still I have one query that can I cite like

Xiu (2001, page 365, Section 6.3, Theorem 7.12).

Kindly explain me and give me new directions.

Thank you very much Dr. Renie G. Thomas

You can approach this issue in two ways. The reader of an article goes through the list of references on the understanding that every reference cited in the paper has been seen by the authors. As mentioned by you, you may have noticed an important source of information quoted in a document. You should try to trace out the original and read it, if you want to use the information for your work. However, if all your attempts to trace out the original fails; and still you feel that it is an important statement, view, or finding, you can quote the reference in an indirect way as given in the example below:

Original script

“Biological invasions have been responsible for at least 3 of the 24 known extinctions of endangered species in the USA (Schmitz and Simberloff, 1997)”

(Schmitz, D.C. and Simberloff, D. 1997. Biological invasions: A growing threat. Issues Sci. Technol. 13: 33–40)

After paraphrasing

Schmitz and Simberloff (1997) states that in the USA, minimum 3 of the 24 reported extinctions of endangered species is because of biological invasions.

The above information is part of a review by Holzmueller and Jose (2009). It is unethical to write as given above even after paraphrasing unless you have seen the original paper by Schmitz and Simberloff (1997). It is better you write as shown below:

Schmitz and Simberloff (1997) cited by Holzmueller and Jose (2009) states that in the USA, minimum 3 of the 24 reported extinctions of endangered species is because of biological invasions.

In the example, Holzmueller and Jose (2009) is responsible for what Schmitz and Simberloff (1997) reported. You shall then list Holzmueller and Jose (2009) instead of Schmitz and Simberloff (1997) in the list of references. This is a better practice instead of pretending that you have seen the original paper of Schmitz and Simberloff (1997). This is called a secondary citation.

(Holzmueller, E.J. and Jose, S.2009. Invasive plant conundrum: What makes the aliens so successful? J. Tropic. Agric. 47 (1-2): 18-29).

It is good to read a nice book completely. But if you have understood the concepts clearly you want to use then it may not be necessary to read it completely.

Thank you very much Khaoula

I was taught as an undergraduate not to read entire books (Ancient History), which I agree with, as chapters are sufficient. But history chapters are stand alone. Even with a book of philosophy it is not necessary to read an entire books unless it is Merleau-Ponty where it is an absolute to understand his central thesis.

I follow answers

best regards