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

Watch
manifesting
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#1
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 ????
0
reply
MedicWil
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 months ago
#2
This page may help you (Assuming you have to use Harvard Referencing): https://www.bristol.ac.uk/arts/exerc...ng/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.
Last edited by MedicWil; 6 months ago
0
reply
PhoenixFortune
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 months ago
#3
(Original post by manifesting)
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 ????
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.
1
reply
mike23mike
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 months ago
#4
(Original post by manifesting)
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 ????
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.
0
reply
manifesting
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#5
(Original post by MedicWil)
This page may help you (Assuming you have to use Harvard Referencing): https://www.bristol.ac.uk/arts/exerc...ng/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)
Last edited by manifesting; 6 months ago
0
reply
manifesting
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#6
(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!
0
reply
PhoenixFortune
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 months ago
#7
(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!
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.
0
reply
MedicWil
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 months ago
#8
(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
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (25)
27.78%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (9)
10%
No I am happy with my choice (50)
55.56%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (6)
6.67%

Watched Threads

View All