Academics Andre's Research Biocuriosities Books Graduate School History of Science Hot off the Press Igor's Research Interdisciplinarity Molecule of the Month Open Access Philip's Research Philosophy of Science Physics Physicsworld.com
Backreaction Ceclia's Blog at PHD Comics Cocktail Party Physics Cosmic Variance The Daily Transcript Easternblot Everyday Scientist The Evilutionary Biologist Freelancing Science The Futile Cycle Good Math, Bad Math iMechanica in singulo Incoherently Scattered Ponderings Juniorprof Klara Stefflova Life of a Lab Rat The Loom Metadatta Mixed States Morning Coffee Physics Not Even Wrong Notes from the biomass Notional Slurry OpenScience Project Pharyngula PLoS Blog Ponderings of a fool Recombinants The Sandwalk SciAm Observations ScienceBlogs Scientific Clearing House Shtetl-Optimized Three-toed Sloth Uncertain Principles What's New by Bob Park
Reference Alberts et al‘s Molecular Biology of the Cell in journal articles.
(Frequency) Double or nothing? Drew Endy on Engineering Biology
Biocurious is written by Andre Brown and Philip Johnson, since 2005. Content of the weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
why?
I’m not entirely sure. You never see biophysics papers written by people who would consider themselves biologists reference Serway’s Physics for Scientists and Engineers, so I’m not sure why physicists think it is appropriate to reference Alberts. Why the primary literature isn’t referenced instead always confuses me.
Really? That’s weird…
Are you saying they’ve not mastered the art of finding who Albert’s cited and citing those articles instead?
On the other hand, it’s perfectly normal to reference Landau and Lifshitz or similar texts which have completely assimilated the primary literature. Going back to the original research papers would be a waste of time compared to reading the relevant section of L&L.
The problem isn’t that physicists want to reference books. It’s that the biologists don’t write books that can be referenced.
For my part I’m always astonished when anyone reads Alberts, much less references it.
Tyler – no, I’m sure they could do that. But my thought is that (non-bio)physicists who read the article would never care to go to the primary literature, and they don’t expect biologists to read their papers. This does both physicists and biologists a real injustice in my opinion.
Frederick – L&Ls are of a considerably higher level than Alberts is in the respective fields. I think Alberts is a fine text for introductory ideas to molecular biology, but that shouldn’t be the end point for a biophysicist looking into some problem in biology. And it definitely shouldn’t make it onto the reference list in a Nature Physics or PRL article.
And this biologist is the laughing. You biophysicists are missing the funny by analysing the post in the comments :)
The equivalent for evolutionary psychologists is citing Campbell & Reece.
On the other hand, it’s perfectly normal to reference Landau and Lifshitz or similar texts which have completely assimilated the primary literature. Going back to the original research papers would be a waste of time compared to reading the relevant section of L&L. *************************
As long as the book/review has the point correct. For a grant, my lab dug back through reviews that referenced earlier reviews all the way to the original research article. What did we find? The article actual said the opposite of what had been cited and propagated.