A minimum number of articles that you should cite is one. No research starts from zero. If you say that yours does, you will be intellectually irresponsible. You at least must begin by saying, "My research has never been performed before. The closest anyone has come is research X." Research X should be cited in full. Sorry, but you must absorb the expense, and I have done so many times.

As far as I know there is no prescribed numbers for citing papers and other resources. However, more the references or citations present in papre, more authentic the work will be. we cannot define as to how many citations should be there because there may be people who would go after references rather than on research. A good research should be valued by its innovative or creative contribution; not by the number of references. To be frank to all peers, references or citations are support to the logics of the researcher. There may be papers with only one or two citations, but may be of great value. There may be some papers with a good number of citations but whose value is minimal or zero.

@Nelson, thanks.

Thank God, I managed to get that empirical paper/s to cite, that wasn't my own research! I could also have cited from my previous papers that I presented at conferences, but I do so minimally.

@Chandra, Prof Kamal; thanks. I'm also not keen to have a long list of references.

Thanks for: 'encourage authors only to cite the papers which are necessary to support their results. Good papers are not judged by a very long exhausted reference list. You need a good most up-to-date reference list which supports your discussion'. :))

And thanks for: 'A good research should be valued by its innovative or creative contribution; not by the number of references. ' :))

Citing only the necessary original minimum number of references for the sake of a manuscript as supporting or previously published evidence is only required. No matter how exhaustive the reference list is if the content and quality of the research is poor, references alone can not save the research.

Citing main reference and not the cross reference is always expected to give proper credit to the original contributor/s in specific areas. Due to space limitation in printed format most of the journals impose a predefined max number of references to be cited but open access online journals are quite flexible with this.

Dear C. Lewis, thanks for giving me lots of needed info :))

Thanks for 'Reviewers will tell you about additional references you still need to consult'. Yes, the reviewers did that and I managed to add a few more refs :))

@Amritlal, thanks for:

'Citing only the necessary original minimum number of references for the sake of a manuscript as supporting or previously published evidence is only required. No matter how exhaustive the reference list is if the content and quality of the research is poor, references alone can not save the research.'

Yes, I'm mainly concerned to talk about my research and the results I got, and compare to what other researchers have found. Thanks :)

No There is not minimum nomber .It depends on the research which may require several references or a small nomber of citations.

I agree with Kamal and others. There is neither a minimum number for the reference list in a paper, nor a maximum number of references in a paper.The number of references required varies between an exploratory and an experiment study.

@Prof Hatem, thanks.

My research is mostly based on an innovation, so it belongs to the category of needing small number of citations. Hopefully the reviewers agree about this, thanks :)

@Prof Mahfuz, thanks :)

Safer and safer, this is what I feel,

after hearing from all of you :))

Actually, Miranda, I am one of those (perfectionist) researchers who aspire to cite every previous paper pertinent to my theme, not selected works. This is because a scholar who is omitted could well take offense-- I have had this happen in print-- and what happens if some learned journal asks him to review your book or paper? I am not saying that it is wrong to make a select bibliography. In certain circumstances, it is better. I merely say that I never have. My stuff is new too, but certain references are indispensable. I shudder to think what they will say about my latest book, which elite university libraries are In the process of acquiring!

My answer is more of a question inspired by the answers I read: Do you think that a reviewer could opt for a "reject" just because his work is related to the topic at hand (even if it is not one of the most important works)? This would mean that citing is also about politics...

My view is similar to the ones expressed above: If your arguments are clear and the most important relevant works are cited, then the number of references per se is of secondary importance.

@Miranda, neither a defined minimum number of cited references exists, nor I did found any rules in that sense! Behind, different referencing styles are used in different scientific areas! Follow recommendations!

http://www.cite.auckland.ac.nz/index.php?p=which_referencing_style

There is not any minimum number of reference to cite as such. We should only cite as many references which are necessary to support our results. Moreover, now the world is a global village. Whenever you need any article, you can ask your friends through internet to provide you with that article. You can leave a message on my inbox if you need any article. We have to move forward according to the available resources so we should opt for all the possible ways. Good luck!

Dear Miranda

I strongly agree and subscribe the first answer by Kamal, aldo supported in this discussion by other colleagues. Always be carefull with empricial sets of data and anectodical reports/information.´

Best regards,

JP

Dear Miranda,

In general, for publications, you have rather recommendations for a maximum number of papers not to be surpassed (essentially because of few places is possible in edited journals), and evidently the only ones you cite in your work.

For some subjects, especially if not very studied, it can be difficult to find several papers in the same area, even old publications.

So, I think you can do as you want … and as you can.

Friendly

Didier

If the main problem for accessing the required empirical articles is that they are not freely available, my recommendation is for you to try just to get in contact with the authors and ask for a copy. Many scholars feel that scientific knowledge should be spread freely, so it's worth trying!

My opinion agrees with that of many discussants of this question. It is better to use only the number of references which are necessary to clearly support your research. The possibility to use only the abstracts for the impossibility to have a free access to many full texts may be sometimes lazy, but in some case it is enough to obtain the information you need for your paper. The idea to ask a copy to Authors is very good. I have never denied to send a copy of a manuscript to researchers who requested it, when I was the main author. A final question may be: do you think that Editors may appreciate the citation of articles of their journals that, as you know, increases the IF of the journal itself?

I agree.

For me, that's sad that knowledges cannot be at disposure of all scientists, even all people. But as we works to do research, we cannot work to spread it out , at an international level, and haven't time to do it. So, others, in the jobs of edtition, do it for us; and it's a commercial activity (and it can seem normal to be paid for a work).

Another problem is that there is a great difference between the countries about the level of life and value of money. So, that could seem possible (event if it's very expensive) to buy for researchers in USA or some European country, is impossible in others (a year of registration for a journal can represent 7-8 months of salary).

To my mind, part of the found given by sponsorship in rich countries could be devoted to finance the subscribtion at journal in poorest countries; only an example.

Because all the research works in the world are important, like all researchers, and have to be known, also for the good of all humanity.

Regards

Didier

I don;t think there is minimal number of articles that should be cited in research article, although few Journals would limit the maximum number of references to use. To my opinion the important think is the quality of the articles you cite rather than the number of references, in some abstracts one can find the main results and it could be enough.

I serve on a number of editorial boards of scholarly journals. If the editor sends me an article to judge on a popular subject with only one or two references, I immediately get suspicious. If the subject is not popular or if it is allegedly new, the absence of all references also gets me suspicious. On the other hand, a new, unpopular subject makes me wonder if the paper will have many readers. This is why I rely on you, Miranda, as the author of a "new-fangled" paper, to make an exceptionally convincing argument about its importance and its veracity.

You can claim at the start that your paper is revolutionary, but you must argue as if your position were the most natural, most un-revolutionary one in the world.

Miranda: I was just going to write that I have usually had success contacting the authors and asking them for a digital copy of their articles, but I see that Izaskun already said that five hours ago. An alternative is to check the Academia and RearchGate web sites and see if the files are available there.

Yes Miranda! It it the problem faced by all of the researcher with financial background of lower middle class.

As Kamal sir said there is n such limitation for the number of citations for the paper. But, one should site only the most relevant and the lastest update IMO.

As Izaskun and David said, contacting authors is very good alternative, which is proved to be fruitful for me may times.

Another alternative is peer network. This network may be your seniors in the fields and may be RG. Many times when the above said ways don't work, I suggest the paper to my supervisor. He purchases it and provide it to me for perusal.

Scholars without economic or institutional power have to plead with more fortunate colleagues to obtain access to research that is relevant to their work. We have here a powerful argument in favor of open access journals and web sites. In my humble opinion, any research that has received public funds should be freely available to all people. Paying for research that has received funds from the public sector is the result of a perverse system. Taking this argument a bit further, even private funding depends on the investment of time and energy of global society as a whole.

Dear friends, thanks for your advice. I was on this question till late last night, and I wake up to a bright new day and many ideas from you all. THANKS.

So we are all agreed that the number of citations is not a big issue. As long as it gives us 'enough evidence' (from Patrick).

Another great thing we are agreed on is that to get the references, we just need to ask from the authors and friends all over the globe and RG (from Izaskun, Muhammad Ehsan, David). JUST RECENTLY, IT WAS PROF LJUBOMIR AND PATRICK WHO HELPED ME. THANKS.

@Rana, the abstracts of papers I found usually did not have empirical data. The journals want us to buy them. But for my publications, I put the stats in the abstract so that other authors get them cost free.

@Darasingh, you are fortunate; at least your supervisor has a grant :)

@Nelson, yes like you I'm 'author of a "new-fangled" paper'. But I already have 4 such papers on music mnemonics published as conference proceedings and you can check that the number of downloads on RG exceeded my imagination.

That's why this time I'm trying to put the 5th paper in a journal. I have sent the revision of the paper back to the editor, and with whatever remaining energy I put up this question.

THANK YOU FRIENDS FOR EVERYTHING :)

Formally there is not a minimum number of citations, but it depends on the (un - revealed) policy of each journal: sometimes they 'want' to see a minimum citations of articles already published in their journal. As for the full text, I think that RG, Academia, SSRN and JSTOR are good resources.

@Demetris, thanks for your response. I searched RG, and searched using Google Scholar. Some abstracts were useful; it's just that they didn't want to include the empirical data (so that we need to buy them). But I found 1 great full paper and I cited all the values of t-tests that the authors performed. I cited the stats from 1 of my own papers. At this 1st revision, I added 12 more articles to my refs.

I'll wait for about 5 more weeks to see what .happens. Now I'm analyzing data for another paper :))

I agree there is no minimum limits of citations. Larger and recent/current citation give credibility to research. In fact when you are writing a research paper from the view point through experimental procedure or type of data, method to analyse you have to support every step from the related studies by other researchers.

Thanks Mohammad Firoz, for 'there is no minimum limits of citations. Larger and recent/current citation give credibility to research. In fact when you are writing a research paper'.

As I said, now while I'm waiting for news, I'm keeping very busy with other work as well.

As other scholars have mentioned above, there is no limit for citing papers. The articles are cited to justify the results. In case of novel studies on a unique topic one may not find even a single article. So answer to this question is hidden in the question as 'Why do we cite other articles while writing a manuscript? Science does not care non-availability of financial resources for getting online access. If some results need a reference from a journal which demands money for access, I think there is no alternative except to gain the access to that article by anyway or to drop the research.

@Muhammad Shoaib, thanks.

'Why do we cite other articles while writing a manuscript?

I cite to show that previous researchers found it worthwhile to pursue this research, my results are parallel, yet my study has its peculiarities or special features...

Sent from mobile.

Thanks friends. I have learnt many things on this thread :)

I will keep you informed of the review of my paper...

Good luck!

Thanks Izaskun.

I saw there was question about war. So I need to turn around to peace with my question:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_roles_of_scientists_and_researchers_in_fostering_national_peace_and_international_peace_What_are_your_views_and_experiences?cp=re70_x_p2&ch=reg&loginT=roHZOZ-HP4rHaZ20tB3i2bZWHCqCYfoNV5pAjrKPa28%2A&pli=1

@ Prof.Miranda Yeoh,

You are welcome. Yes you have rightly explained the common reasoning of citing other articles. But my belief is quite different. To me citation not only authenticates that my work is supported by the previous researchers but my research is a part of evolutionary process on a particular issue or topic. Because if I forget the evolutionary aspect and cite other articles just to authenticate that my results are the same as of previous researchers, then it would be a repetition instead of evolution or progression.

@Muhammad Shoaib, thanks. Yes, there is progress made through our research :))

According to my opinion the more the better .But we should be care to have balance between our text and references. We can not write plenty of references which our other paper sections are very short.

Thanks Prof Ali. My BSc was in Biochem & Biology. Even then I made up mnemonics to facilitate recall. Otherwise, I would have got miserable exam results :)

"Reviewers may say that we only read the abstracts only, as if we are being lazy"

I realise this is an unpopular thing to say, but I think authors should only cite articles they have actually read in full, as otherwise myths and errors are repeated like Chinese Whispers. If ony an abstract is available, then that and not the article should be cited.

@Anthony, thanks for your view.