I treat citations as an integral part of the text. In my opinion, citation should be included as necessary, replacing lengthy explanations with references to those texts where this has already been done. In a certain sense, the reference apparatus of the article demonstrates the author’s involvement in the problem being solved and his degree of respect for his predecessors. We all stand on the shoulders of giants (nanos gigantum humeris insidentes), as Bernard de Chartres said (this expression is often cited in Newton interpretation, but as shown by U. Eco (cited by: Umberto Eco. “On the shoulders of giants”. Lecture book. - M. : Word / Slovo, 2018. - Rus. Translation), this idea dates back to Priscian (6th century BC)). Unfortunately, there is a tendency to refer not to primary sources and truly pioneering works, but to contemporaries who work in this area.

The modern approach to citation causes a number of disagreements, the so-called selfcitation can be made in order to show the sequence of studies, their relationship with previous works of the author, or can be made simply to improve author's statistics.

But if selfcitations are somehow defined, then friendly reference (colleagues, bosses, compatriots, etc.) to works that often have nothing relation with specific text, but are made only according to "tradition" or for even more problematic reasons, can be identified by the reviewer only (but very often are not disputed by him).

In different area of science the number of citations is traditionally different. If physicians abundantly cite previous works (by and without reason...), then humanitarians, for example, very often get by with few references to classical works (by the principle: Me and Aristotle).

Thus, counting the number of citations does not say anything about work in full. This indicator is for science managers, not for researchers.

The number of references is irrelevant. What matters is that every paraphrase or quote be referenced. Review papers will have more references than ground-breaking original Research.

I think that the number of references should not depend on certain "rules of thumb" but rather on the number of references that are required to support, appropriately, what is being written about. For example, a couple of days ago, a (brief) peer-reviewed manuscript of mine was published in which there were only six references. It was a rejoinder to a commentary about a previously published article of mine. In contrast, last week, some colleagues and I had a substantial peer-reviewed article published in which there were 175 references.

This parallels the old saying, horses for courses.

In essence, I think that no important references should be omitted, and no references should be included merely to bulk up the number of entries in a reference list.

Thank you very much dear Ian Kennedy ,

I agree with you that the number of references is irrelevant, and it must be different between review papers and original research. But how do you think if one only cites 3 references for a certain paper? As a journal editor, don't you think that we need the minimum number of references?

Dear Robert Trevethan ,

Thank you for your reply. I also agree with you. But, please have a look at the Author Guideline of an international conference in this site http://mest.ums.ac.id/2019/ .

In the lower page it was written that for Scopus Publication it needed At least twenty (20) references. Please give your comment.

Thank you.

Although there is no fixed standard for how many references to be included in manuscripts, however., I would like express my moderate estimate as:

For Ordinary conference Paper, I suggest 20 to 30.

For Journals, I suggest 25 to 35.

For Survey Paper 75 to 150.

Thank you very much dear Muhammad Ali ,

Your reply is very valuable to be discuss by us.

Dear scholars, please give your response.

Thank you.

Nazaruddin Sinaga. My simple response would be that, if you are intending to submit a manuscript to the conference in question, you would be advised to follow the author instructions lest your manuscript be rejected.

I suspect that the conference organizers believe that some previous submissions have been too "lightweight", and they are trying to ensure that manuscripts are sufficiently respectable / substantial.

Some journals have max numbers for certain empirical papers, largely to stop what is done in some papers listing any paper they can to show they can use Google. High impact letters in Science/Nature may only have a few. Importantly, it varies by discipline, so without you specifying this I would not feel comfortable answering.

Thank you Robert Trevethan ,

So, in several cases maybe it is wise enough to determine the minimum number of references, right? But we still not sure how to determine the number except like Muhammad Ali suggestion.

Dear Daniel Wright , your reply is very interesting. There also rules for maximum number of references. In your opinion, what is the minimum references required for engineering and social science discipline papers?

Thank you.

Nazaruddin Sinaga , the minimum is zero. This should be clear from the previous responses. It depends on what you are reporting.

The main point is that no paper should be cited for citation sake. Packing will result in rejection.

The second point is that omitting a relevant reference is almost as sinful. The first thing a referee does on receiving your abstract is to submit it to Scholar to see what references you have ignored. To get guidance on what is acceptable in your narrow or wide field, consult previous issues of the journal to determine the minimum, mean and maximum number of references accepted in practice, and then at least ensure you have the mean, unless you are an Einstein or The Reviewer of the World's Knowledge Base!

The third point is that the engineering fraternity often has to cite sources of figures, sources of equations, sources of acronyms, white papers, technical specifications, international standards, trade names of equipment or software used etc. This is business as usual. But I do not count these in the 5 reputable RESEARCH references required. " At least twenty (20) references.  Five (5) of the sources must be from reputable journal articles found in database(s) ". [ http://mest.ums.ac.id/2019/ ]

If your one paper is on all of the following, you will need a basic defining reference to each of them, making 10 references before you even start:

If your paper is on "Creative ways to improve heat transfer", then you will only need the main references that Scholar gives in your introduction.

If your paper is even narrower, (pick one of these 15 topics below) then Google Scholar just that topic to get your basic references:

• heat transfer enhancement
• pool boiling heat transfer
• convective heat transfer
• ultrasonic vibrations on heat transfer
• heat transfer behaviours
• enhancement of natural convection heat transfer
• heat transfer with phase change
• numerical heat transfer
• heat transfer in nanofluids
• heat transfer augmentation
• heat transfer process
• role of ions boiling heat transfer
• heat transfer performance
• heat transfer correlation
• heat transfer experimental investigation

Easy!

Dear Daniel Wright , thank you for your response.

Could you tell us why did you say that the minimum number is zero, please?

Dear Ian Kennedy ,

Your answer is very wise an positive. I hope it can help us.

Have a nice weekend...

Best wishes.

I treat citations as an integral part of the text. In my opinion, citation should be included as necessary, replacing lengthy explanations with references to those texts where this has already been done. In a certain sense, the reference apparatus of the article demonstrates the author’s involvement in the problem being solved and his degree of respect for his predecessors. We all stand on the shoulders of giants (nanos gigantum humeris insidentes), as Bernard de Chartres said (this expression is often cited in Newton interpretation, but as shown by U. Eco (cited by: Umberto Eco. “On the shoulders of giants”. Lecture book. - M. : Word / Slovo, 2018. - Rus. Translation), this idea dates back to Priscian (6th century BC)). Unfortunately, there is a tendency to refer not to primary sources and truly pioneering works, but to contemporaries who work in this area.

The modern approach to citation causes a number of disagreements, the so-called selfcitation can be made in order to show the sequence of studies, their relationship with previous works of the author, or can be made simply to improve author's statistics.

But if selfcitations are somehow defined, then friendly reference (colleagues, bosses, compatriots, etc.) to works that often have nothing relation with specific text, but are made only according to "tradition" or for even more problematic reasons, can be identified by the reviewer only (but very often are not disputed by him).

In different area of science the number of citations is traditionally different. If physicians abundantly cite previous works (by and without reason...), then humanitarians, for example, very often get by with few references to classical works (by the principle: Me and Aristotle).

Thus, counting the number of citations does not say anything about work in full. This indicator is for science managers, not for researchers.

The is no minimum or maximum. You have to cite what you take from others.

Thank you very much dear Vadim S. Gorshkov ,

Your comment is complete and vary valuable. I agree with you, this indicator is for science manager, not for researchers. If you are forced to suggest it, what is the minimum number, please?

Dear Mirna Leko-Šimić ,

Thank you for your reply....

Dear respected colleagues and scholars. Please participate in the discussion and give your comments.

Thank you very much.

Dear respected colleagues and scholars. Please participate in the discussion and give your comments.

Thank you very much.

Dear scholars, please join our important and interesting discussion at:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_agree_if_we_create_an_international_organization_of_university_lecturers#view=5e3cbc1e2ba3a1a3a972a2d2

We discuss about creating an international organization of lecturers and researchers for us. I think you would like to be a member or organizer.

Thank you very much.

Best regards.

Dear Sir,

for high impact review u should add minimum 75 reference, as number of references increases, chances of acceptance increase in high impact journals.