Referencing the work of other authors is an essential element of scientific publishing, and it is worthwhile to give this topic some careful thought and consideration. As a reader and as an author, there can be a temptation to discount the reference section of a manuscript as a less important administrative requirement, but there are good reasons to carefully construct a purposeful collection of references to complement the quality and rigor in every other part of one's work. Done well, scientific references add value to scientific publications. Done poorly, scientific citations diminish the author's work and reputation. This editorial provides a short list of best practices that authors are encouraged to consider when preparing their work for peer review.

“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” — Sir Isaac Newton

Scientific citations give credit and authority to ideas, individuals, journals, and institutions. Their use can be nuanced, and when used properly, they can convey integrity and credibility to a scientific publication. Most references give credit for established facts and findings from authors who have laid foundational paths. When new directions in science emerge, it is common practice to acknowledge and debate the ideas, to critique the thinking, design, and approach responsible for novel discoveries. Through this public discourse, new concepts, ideas, or questions emerge, which can enable new thinking and more trust in scientific findings. It is also common practice to cite the methods and techniques required to obtain reported results so that others may understand, replicate, and validate findings. Many of the most highly cited papers of all time are in this category of foundational methodologies, for example, protein purification or DNA amplification techniques.1 Nevertheless, questions may emerge when authors reflect on referencing other work, such as when to reference, how to reference, and how best to use self-citations. The following basic recommendations are intended to help improve the use of scientific references.

READ THE CITED WORK

Useful references are based on factual knowledge and contextual understanding of the material cited. It is not sufficient to know the title and read the abstract. Referencing requires more than superficial awareness of a publication; it requires critical review of the entire article to put the contributions of cited work in the appropriate context.

Familiarity with citations from others can help authors identify papers that may have value in the field, but credible authors still read and understand the work and evidence that they cite. Citing papers that are flawed reflects badly on the citing authors, unless the purpose for the citation is to call attention to the flaws. Careless referencing can result in misattributions if authors are not deeply familiar with the literature. Likewise, misinterpretations of the results and implications of a published paper can mislead others, and each of these errors lessens the credibility of the citing authors. Conversely, well-chosen references enhance credibility and strengthen an author's work. It is imperative for authors to read the work they cite, understand the cited work, and be honest about the importance of cited publications, their validity and contributions to the field.

CITE ORIGINAL SOURCES, NOT REVIEW ARTICLES

Topical review articles are regarded as low quality in the hierarchy of scientific evidence, on par with clinical case reports, expert opinion, and editorials. Done well, review articles can offer useful summaries for authors surveying a new field or brushing up on an old one. Nevertheless, topical reviews are not original research findings and should not be cited as the basis for fact or knowledge. Instead, use the curated references from review articles to help source new literature and continue upstream to the original research that is the source knowledge summarized in the review. Always prioritize the original research when referencing.

Although systematic reviews are considered high-quality evidence, by design, they focus on a specific clinical question. The review process will select relevant articles and summarize knowledge and results from quality original research related to the clinical question. Here too, the references can be a valuable starting point for insight on a specific topic, but the references may be incomplete; that is, studies not specifically relevant to the study question may be excluded, and therefore, systematic reviews should be considered a starting point for finding the original research.

PROVIDE CITATION TRANSPARENCY AND CONTEXT

References should be purposeful, and there should be no doubt in the reader's mind about the reason for citations. Factual statements with a long list of references at the end of the statement provide little useful information about the purpose behind the selected citations. Authors should cite work that contributes to the current study and make clear the contextual relevance for their citation. It is fairly common for authors to reference previous publications and provide little or no context for their citations, potentially resulting in confusion or misunderstanding. For example: “Although many potential factors of influence have been identified,2,3–11 the exact origin of the condition is still not fully understood.” In this example, the authors' statement and 10 associated references appear to substantiate the statement that many potential factors have been identified, but not what they are or the plausibility for any of them. This provides no additional clarity for the reader. If all 10 references are necessary, the authors should take the time to discuss the findings for each cited study. It most cases, it would be better to cite fewer articles and briefly summarize the importance for each cited study.

Furthermore, authors should make clear the positive or negative context for their citations. Are the authors challenging the results of previous work? Is there a critical limitation or finding in the cited paper that provides the basis for the current study? Authors should make clear what they are saying with their citation and why they are saying it to provide as much support as possible for their work.

REVIEW, PRIORITIZE, AND DEFEND YOUR REFERENCES

Not all references have equal value, and if challenged by an editor or reviewers, authors should be capable of defending their choices. Here are some questions to help sort the importance of individual references.

General Considerations Strive to cite required relevant sources, for example, concepts fundamental in the field, novel ideas, required methods, new questions, and critiques of prior work. In general, do not cite widely established scientific facts. Does the reference provide substantial support for an essential fact, or is the reference in support of well established/accepted fact? Can you decrease the number of references required to support a specific claim? Does the reference provide high-quality peer-reviewed evidence? Is the reference a self-citation? Self-citation rates among highly cites scholars in biomedicine are approximately 10%.2 Considerations by Manuscript Section Introduction Is the reference supporting well-established widely accepted facts? Does the reference support what is known or important current thinking in the field? Does the reference address what is not known or current gaps in the field? Does the reference provide important support for a conceptual argument essential to the purpose of the research? Methods Does the reference help avoid repetition of previously published methods? Is the reference to well-established published methods known to all? Discussion Is the reference required to address confirmatory or contradictory findings? Does the reference support novel claims or synthesis of new ideas? Does the reference help address study limitations or potential bias? Is the reference helpful in supporting new research directions or future studies?

These ideas and recommendations can help reduce the number of unnecessary references and improve the quality of those remaining. In summary, the key concept offered here is to be thoughtful and purposeful with scientific citations. Above all else, read and understand the work cited. Use citations clearly and provide sufficient context so that any reference can be understood as the authors intended. These practices will ultimately bring greater credibility and substance to the final work.

Michael D. Twa, OD, PhD, FAAO
Editor in Chief
Optometry and Vision Science
University of Houston College of Optometry
Houston, TX

REFERENCES 1. Van Noorden R, Maher B, Nuzzo R. The Top 100 Papers. Nature 2014;514:550–3. 2. Szomszor M, Pendlebury DA, Adams J. How Much Is Too Much? The Difference between Research Influence and Self-citation Excess. Scientometrics 2020;123:1119–47.