인용 출처 추적
널리 인용되는 주장이 알고 보면 작은 연구 하나에서 나온 경우가 많습니다. 어느 연구인지 찾으세요.
A claim that everyone in a field cites is not necessarily a claim anyone has checked. Citation chains decay: paper C cites B for a finding, B cites A, and A turns out to be a conference abstract with twelve participants, or a review that was itself citing something else. This happens often enough to have a name — citation distortion — and documented cases exist where a belief became established in a literature on the basis of sources that never said it. Following a claim back to where it was first shown takes minutes and occasionally changes what you are willing to build on.
How far back should I follow a citation?
Until you reach primary evidence: the study that actually measured the thing, not a review restating it.
What is citation distortion?
The documented pattern where a claim becomes established through repeated citation of sources that do not support it as stated.
Is this worth doing for every claim?
No, for the load-bearing ones. If your argument depends on it, the five minutes to check its origin is cheap insurance.