So why are people reluctant to cite multiple references for the analysis
methods? The data generation sections of papers generally have several
references. Are some people just lazy? Do coauthors think that analysis
is a one-size-fits-all phenomenon? If so, the analysts should be more
aggressive about insisting on proper citation. There is no reason NOT to
cite several references, if such citations are needed to correctly
describe what one has done.
************************************************************************
Ellen M. Wijsman EXPRESS MAIL ADDRESS:
Research Professor 1914 N 34th St., suite 209
Div. of Medical Genetics and Seattle, WA 98103
Dept. Biostatistics (Note: do not mention the
BOX 357720, University of Washington Univ. of Washington, and
Seattle, WA 98195-7720 use this address only for
phone: (206) 543-8987 express mail)
fax: (206) 616-1973 email: wijsman at u.washington.edu
*************************************************************************
On 27 Nov 1997, I. Fenton wrote:
> hi people,
>> first of all thanks to all those who wrote to me with advice
> and comments about vitesse - ta.
>> reading this newer vitesse thread, there is something that i
> have noticed with regard to LINKAGE usage and that is that i
> know some groups just quote one of the original LINKAGE references,
> - say the PNAS one - when they are actually using FASTLINK, becuase
> that's the "famous" reference that everyone uses. i have had
> the occasional problem trying to get an fellow author to use
> say, 3 references, when they only want one for the analysis
> software methods section of a paper. so, just because a
> citations database says 50%+ people using original LINKAGE
> only, don't expect that this figure is 100% genuine...
>> in the end i did use VITESSE for my multipoint stuff and
> FASTLINK for 2-point stuff and will have to quote god-knows
> how many references in the paper.
>> thanks,
>> Iain Fenton.
>>>>>>
