Voting for TSRs Ultimate Study Playlist is NOW OPEN >>

Should you cite this original source or the source you got the information from?

Confused regarding literature review.
When using informaton from someone else's literature review or paper, should you cite the reference they mentioned (where they got the information from) or should you cite their paper (because technically you got it from their paper, not the original source).

Or am i overthinking this massively and it dosent actually matter ????

Reply 1

EdwardsWK

This page may help you (Assuming you have to use Harvard Referencing): https://www.bristol.ac.uk/arts/exercises/referencing/page_29.htm

Also found this too:

Secondary referencing
This is when you reference one author who is referring to the work of another and the primary source is not available (refer to the primary source where it is available). Secondary referencing should be avoided where possible - if you have only read the later publication you are accepting someone else's opinion and interpretation of the author's original intention.

You must make it clear to your reader which author you have read whilst giving details of original term by using ‘cited in’, e.g. (Ecott 2002, cited in Wilson 2009) or (Cannon 1989, quoted in Wilson 2009, p. 269).

In the reference list you should give details of the item you looked at. Looking at the above examples, you would reference Wilson (2009) in your bibliography/reference list.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 2

PhoenixFortune

Original post by manifesting

Ideally, if you find a paper cited by others, you would find that paper yourself and give it a read. You can then use that paper as a primary reference. If the paper is not available/out of print, then you need to use secondary referencing as MedicWil says above.

Reply 3

mike23mike

Original post by manifesting

Unless you have read the original paper and formed your own opinions, you need to state that you are referring to xxx who cited that yyy had said zzz.

Reply 4

manifesting

Original post by MedicWil

This page may help you (Assuming you have to use Harvard Referencing): https://www.bristol.ac.uk/arts/exercises/referencing/page_29.htm

Also found this too:

wait i read both, so should i just include the original source and not the source i actually got it from? (cuz the source i got it from, got it from the original source)

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 5

manifesting

Original post by mike23mike

Unless you have read the original paper and formed your own opinions, you need to state that you are referring to xxx who cited that yyy had said zzz.

ahh this is conflicting to the above poster ! now im a bit more confused...hopefully another person will hop on this thread to give a 3rd opinion. thank u tho! :smile:

Reply 6

PhoenixFortune

Original post by manifesting

ahh this is conflicting to the above poster ! now im a bit more confused...hopefully another person will hop on this thread to give a 3rd opinion. thank u tho! :smile:

If you have read the original paper yourself, regardless of where you found it/heard of it, cite it as normal. You don't need to reference the other text in relation to the one you found, that would only be if you hadn't read it yourself. :smile:

Reply 7

EdwardsWK

Original post by manifesting

wait i read both, so should i just include the original source and not the source i actually got it from? (cuz the source i got it from, got it from the original source)

As other people have said, if you read the original it came from then cite the original as normal
If you haven't read the original or can't get hold of a copy of it then secondary reference it