next »

[murraylib]

I've received back my first submission to a peer-reviewed journal.  The comments confuse me, so please comment on the following to clarify:

1) I've cited secondary sources quoting primary sources.  The reviewer suggests that I include the original, primary source in my page of references, although I did not actually consult that original source.  It was my understanding that one used the proper form of "as cited in" notation instead.  Should I follow the reviewers suggestion?

2)  I have included a figure of a standard power law.  The reviewer requests a citation for the figure.  I created the figure myself, as standard power laws are not unique "data" that I thought required citation--I would consider this "common knowledge" verifiable with any graphing calculator or a google image search.  Is it necessary to cite something like this? 

Thank you for your assistance.

[sciencephd]

1. Yes, consult and cite the original source, unless it is in an archive in Florence, for example.

2. If it is really common knowledge, then (a) it should be easy to find a source to cite and (b) the figure may be unnecessary.