Citation practice

First, pay attention as to how citations are used in the papers you read. Realize the patterns.

Here are some of these patterns.
A citation can open a sentence (historical approach)
„Hatt et al. (2005) reported that ...“
or it can be used as a proof for a sentence (proof approach)
„Herbivorous tortoises achieve digestibility coefficients that are comparable to mammalian herbivores (Hatt et al. 2005)“

A citation has to corroborate exactly that for which it is quoted in the text. This does not mean that the in the cited text, something “vaguely similar” can be found. It means that in the cited text, proof for what you claim can be found (in the form of data). If a paper just gives a hypothesis or makes a suggestion (no matter how logical it may seem), then your citation practice has to reflect this.

So, if Hatt et al. (2005) write:
„The fact that herbivorous tortoises achieve digestibility coefficients that are comparable to mammalian herbivores (this is demonstrated with data in the paper), could be due to the very long ingesta retention in the gut of the tortoises “ (Retention times were not measured in the paper – i.e. the authors are presenting a speculative explanation which, by the way, is logical and relevant).

... then you MUST NOT quote this paper in the following manner:
Herbivorous tortoises achieve digestibility coefficients that are comparable to mammalian herbivores because of their very long ingesta retention times (Hatt et al. 2005).
This quote sounds as if Hatt et al. (2005) had measured retention times. Such an imprecise citation practice is widespread. But that is no excuse why one should continue it.

The paper should be quoted like this:
In a study of Hatt et al. (2005) herbivorous tortoises achieved digestibility coefficients that were comparable to that reported for mammalian herbivores. The authors suggested that this is due to the exceptionally long retention times in tortoises (ideally here you would quote papers either measuring or reviewing retention times in tortoises; most likely Hatt et al. have such citations in their text).

For the reader, it has to be clear at all times what you are citing. If you cite a suspicion, a hypothesis, a suggestion, then label the citation accordingly. This is not only good practice because it will prevent disappointment of the reader, who will go to the cited reference and find that it does not deliver what your citation promised; it is also proof of your own good scientific understanding – you should be able to differentiate between hypotheses, logical considerations, and original data.

One more example (because this is important):
If Sander & Clauss (2008) speculate that dinosaurs had an ontogenetically flexible metabolism (something the authors definitely could not measure), then you MUST NOT quote them like this:

Dinosaurs had an ontogenetically flexible metabolisms (Sander & Clauss 2008).

but like this

In dinosaurs, an ontogenetically flexible metabolism has been suggested (Sander & Clauss 2008).

A good paper cites references in such a way that the reader knowns whether the cited paper gives proof (by data or by a meta-analysis), or presents a (speculative) idea.

Citation and reference layout
At our Clinic, we consider a proper citation and reference layout as very important, and judge students by the way they do the citations and reference list.
We strongly recommend that you follow the guidelines presented here.

Have a look at the citations and reference lists in different papers. You will find that the style of the citations and references differs between journals, but you should note that within one paper, the style of the reference list is consistent. We expect you to realize this and to follow this example by having the citations and reference list of your text in a consistent layout as well. If you deliver a text, even a preliminary one, with citations and reference list where the layout is inconsistent, we automatically doubt your capacity for consistent thinking.

Some typical mistakes that we do not want to see:

In citations in the text, the initials of the authors are given
negative example: tortoises digest efficiently (Hatt JM et al. 2005)
correct example: tortoises digest efficiently (Hatt et al. 2005)

Lack of consistency (basically, it does not matter which of the options you choose, as long as you are consistent)

In the reference list, some of the journal names are abbreviated (Zoo Biol.), and some are written out completely (Zoo Biology).

In the reference list, some of the journal names are abbreviated with an abbreviation dot (Zoo Biol.), and some are abbreviated without a dot (Zoo Biol).

In the reference list, some of the year numbers are in parantheses (2005) and some are not 2005.

In the reference list, some initials have a dot (Clauss, M.) and some do not (Clauss, M).

In the reference list, some initials are separated from the last name by a comma (Clauss, M) and some are not (Clauss M).

In the reference list, some page numbers are separated from the volume number by a comma (Journal of Medicine 34, 3-7), and in some cases, they are separated by a colon (Journal of Medicine 34: 3-7).

In the reference list, some references have a dot at the end, and some do not.

And my personal favourite:
In the reference list, for some papers, not only the volume but also the issue number is given negative example: Journal of Medicine 34 (2): 3-7
In no scientific journal is the issue number ever required for the reference list. positive example: Journal of Medicine 34: 3-7

A citation can have different appearance:

Hatt JM, Clauss M, Gisler R, Liesegang A, Wanner M (2005) Fiber digestibility in juvenile captive Galapagos tortoises (Geochelone nigra). Zoo Biol 24: 185-191

Hatt, J.-M., Clauss, M., Gisler, R., Liesegang, A. and Wanner, M.: 2005. Fiber digestibility in juvenile captive Galapagos tortoises (Geochelone nigra). Zoo Biology 24, 185-191.

Hatt, J.-M., M. Clauss, R. Gisler, A. Liesegang, M. Wanner. Fiber digestibility in juvenile captive Galapagos tortoises (Geochelone nigra). Zoo Biol. 24: 185-191 (2005).

... and many more.

The best way to work is to put references into Endnote. You can either enter all the information into Endnote manually, or you download the information from the internet. If you use the download function, you must be aware that the information you download is very often not correct, or not in the right format, and you MUST apply manual corrections. In Endnote, take care that:
- all author names are correct as they appear on the paper
- journal names are not abbreviated but given in full
- page numbers are correct (a good indication that they are probably not is when they start at page 1, as in 1-5) – note that in many modern journals, classic page numbers have been replaced by article numbers (i.e. no longer 23-31, but e3588)
- Latin species names are set in italics
- the use of small and capital letters is correct; this is often not the case in journal names (e.g. Mammalian biology (wrong) vs. Mammalian Biology (correct)), and in paper titles which should use small letters except for the very first word and names.