1

In geology, it is common to describe structures observed on land. Very often, these structures are described in detail and then an interpretation is provided to explain how the structures have contributed to the formation of mountains. If a researcher (let's call him John) has worked on these structures in area A, and you study similar structures in area B (that is similar to area A), then it is possibly worthwhile to cite John's work to support your observations/interpretations (depending on the context).

Let's imagine now that instead of providing a narrative description of the structures in area B, you describe them statistically. If you want to interpret the statistical results, you would need (qualitative) descriptions of these structures, e.g. from those provided by John. However, you haven't described the area B and no former research paper did it either, so even if your structures in B tend to be similar to those of A, you would need those descriptions to explain your statistics.

To solve this, would it be correct to cite the current study like ... descriptive-text...(this study) if observations about the structures have been made in B but not formerly established in another research paper?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

What you describe as citing would normally be talked of a cross referencing; and yes, it is quite normal to refer in one part of a work to another relevant part of the work by means of a cross reference. So, for example, one might say in section A of a paper,

For a statistical analysis of the features described here, see section B.

and in section B to say,

For a qualitative description of the features that are analyzed here, see section A

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .