You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In #96, @smiths comments on the first quote in the following sentence that "this looks like a quote, but I don't see a citation" and about the citation at the end of this sentence, "is this the citation? If it is, you should invoke it both times where you quote it." However, according to both APA and Harvard guidelines (we're using natbib -- #7 -- which supports both), you shouldn't cite the same citation for back-to-back sentences, since it makes the document cluttered, as long as it's clear which source is being referenced. I've always been taught that once at the end of the cited content within a sentence is sufficient, although I can't readily find a source for this. I think how I've done it here is correct, unless there is disagreement.
(The comment to rephrase this sentence in my own words is a separate thing, which I agree with!, but the citation questions still stands)
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
In #96, @smiths comments on the first quote in the following sentence that "this looks like a quote, but I don't see a citation" and about the citation at the end of this sentence, "is this the citation? If it is, you should invoke it both times where you quote it." However, according to both APA and Harvard guidelines (we're using natbib -- #7 -- which supports both), you shouldn't cite the same citation for back-to-back sentences, since it makes the document cluttered, as long as it's clear which source is being referenced. I've always been taught that once at the end of the cited content within a sentence is sufficient, although I can't readily find a source for this. I think how I've done it here is correct, unless there is disagreement.
(The comment to rephrase this sentence in my own words is a separate thing, which I agree with!, but the citation questions still stands)
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions