Undercitation

Undercitation is the practice of providing too few citations in a text, resulting in insufficient attribution of ideas, data, or methods to their sources. It may involve omitting important primary sources, relying on a small set of secondary sources, or failing to indicate the provenance of a claim. Undercitation can obscure the scope of evidence and impede verification.

Causes include time pressure, editorial constraints, inadequate literature review, disciplinary norms that favor later attribution, and overreliance on memory rather than systematic citation. It can also arise when writers summarize widely accepted ideas without deciding which sources to credit or when authors assume that common knowledge does not require citation.

Forms and examples include not citing foundational experiments or datasets; citing reviews that do not directly support a specific claim; and selective citation that supports a narrative while omitting conflicting sources. These practices can undermine scholarly rigor and, in some cases, risk charges of plagiarism if the omitted sources contain original contributions.

Impacts include reduced traceability, weaker credibility, and diminished ability for readers to assess evidence or reproduce results. Repeated undercitation can distort the scholarly record by underrepresenting authors’ contributions.

Prevention involves conducting a comprehensive literature review, tracking and verifying sources for every factual claim or method, citing primary sources where appropriate, and using citation management tools. Peer review and editorial checks can help identify undercitation.

Related concepts include overcitation, citation bias, and broader ethics of attribution.