How old can references or sources in a thesis be?












10















I have read that references in scientific papers should be no more than 2-3 years old, since such fields move fast, and no more than 10 years for arts or related fields:




A good rule of thumb is to use sources published in the past 10 years
for research in the arts, humanities, literature, history, etc.



For faster-paced fields, sources published in the past 2-3 years is a
good benchmark since these sources are more current and reflect the
newest discoveries, theories, processes, or best practices.




However, I believe that's subjective, so how old is it for a reference to be "too old" to cite?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Muizz Mahdy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 24





    There is no "too old to cite". I've actually referenced some of Adolf Fick's and Einstein's original papers in my dissertation. (And they were such fun to read!) Also, that references need to have a certain age is nonsense. Where did you read this?

    – Roland
    16 hours ago






  • 2





    @Roland strictly speaking you are right: as written the OP states that a publication must be older than 2 years before you can cite it. However, given the content of the question I suspect that the OP intended to say that a publication must be younger than 2 years.

    – Maarten Buis
    16 hours ago






  • 2





    No study is too old to cite, but not all studies "age well". Especially in fast paced discipline studies can easily be obsolete. However, this does not mean that all older studies in those disciplines become obsolete, just that many do. You can and should use those non-obsolete older ones.

    – Maarten Buis
    16 hours ago






  • 2





    If you are still allowed to reference Plato, that's more than 10 years...

    – Solar Mike
    15 hours ago








  • 3





    I notice the web page you cited says "A good rule of thumb is" and "is a good benchmark", which is a lot softer than your wording suggests, especially in trying to pin-point the exact suggested constraints. Also, the librarian's answer clearly seems to be designed for undergraduate research papers and projects, and a quick check shows the university serves almost entirely undergraduates. Finally, a look at the "Related FAQs" titles on the right side shows the kinds of things (allowing for a 40 year gap) covered in my required freshman English composition course.

    – Dave L Renfro
    15 hours ago
















10















I have read that references in scientific papers should be no more than 2-3 years old, since such fields move fast, and no more than 10 years for arts or related fields:




A good rule of thumb is to use sources published in the past 10 years
for research in the arts, humanities, literature, history, etc.



For faster-paced fields, sources published in the past 2-3 years is a
good benchmark since these sources are more current and reflect the
newest discoveries, theories, processes, or best practices.




However, I believe that's subjective, so how old is it for a reference to be "too old" to cite?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Muizz Mahdy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 24





    There is no "too old to cite". I've actually referenced some of Adolf Fick's and Einstein's original papers in my dissertation. (And they were such fun to read!) Also, that references need to have a certain age is nonsense. Where did you read this?

    – Roland
    16 hours ago






  • 2





    @Roland strictly speaking you are right: as written the OP states that a publication must be older than 2 years before you can cite it. However, given the content of the question I suspect that the OP intended to say that a publication must be younger than 2 years.

    – Maarten Buis
    16 hours ago






  • 2





    No study is too old to cite, but not all studies "age well". Especially in fast paced discipline studies can easily be obsolete. However, this does not mean that all older studies in those disciplines become obsolete, just that many do. You can and should use those non-obsolete older ones.

    – Maarten Buis
    16 hours ago






  • 2





    If you are still allowed to reference Plato, that's more than 10 years...

    – Solar Mike
    15 hours ago








  • 3





    I notice the web page you cited says "A good rule of thumb is" and "is a good benchmark", which is a lot softer than your wording suggests, especially in trying to pin-point the exact suggested constraints. Also, the librarian's answer clearly seems to be designed for undergraduate research papers and projects, and a quick check shows the university serves almost entirely undergraduates. Finally, a look at the "Related FAQs" titles on the right side shows the kinds of things (allowing for a 40 year gap) covered in my required freshman English composition course.

    – Dave L Renfro
    15 hours ago














10












10








10








I have read that references in scientific papers should be no more than 2-3 years old, since such fields move fast, and no more than 10 years for arts or related fields:




A good rule of thumb is to use sources published in the past 10 years
for research in the arts, humanities, literature, history, etc.



For faster-paced fields, sources published in the past 2-3 years is a
good benchmark since these sources are more current and reflect the
newest discoveries, theories, processes, or best practices.




However, I believe that's subjective, so how old is it for a reference to be "too old" to cite?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Muizz Mahdy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












I have read that references in scientific papers should be no more than 2-3 years old, since such fields move fast, and no more than 10 years for arts or related fields:




A good rule of thumb is to use sources published in the past 10 years
for research in the arts, humanities, literature, history, etc.



For faster-paced fields, sources published in the past 2-3 years is a
good benchmark since these sources are more current and reflect the
newest discoveries, theories, processes, or best practices.




However, I believe that's subjective, so how old is it for a reference to be "too old" to cite?







citations thesis masters online-resource






share|improve this question









New contributor




Muizz Mahdy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Muizz Mahdy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 10 hours ago









Nat

5,63431640




5,63431640






New contributor




Muizz Mahdy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 16 hours ago









Muizz MahdyMuizz Mahdy

636




636




New contributor




Muizz Mahdy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Muizz Mahdy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Muizz Mahdy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 24





    There is no "too old to cite". I've actually referenced some of Adolf Fick's and Einstein's original papers in my dissertation. (And they were such fun to read!) Also, that references need to have a certain age is nonsense. Where did you read this?

    – Roland
    16 hours ago






  • 2





    @Roland strictly speaking you are right: as written the OP states that a publication must be older than 2 years before you can cite it. However, given the content of the question I suspect that the OP intended to say that a publication must be younger than 2 years.

    – Maarten Buis
    16 hours ago






  • 2





    No study is too old to cite, but not all studies "age well". Especially in fast paced discipline studies can easily be obsolete. However, this does not mean that all older studies in those disciplines become obsolete, just that many do. You can and should use those non-obsolete older ones.

    – Maarten Buis
    16 hours ago






  • 2





    If you are still allowed to reference Plato, that's more than 10 years...

    – Solar Mike
    15 hours ago








  • 3





    I notice the web page you cited says "A good rule of thumb is" and "is a good benchmark", which is a lot softer than your wording suggests, especially in trying to pin-point the exact suggested constraints. Also, the librarian's answer clearly seems to be designed for undergraduate research papers and projects, and a quick check shows the university serves almost entirely undergraduates. Finally, a look at the "Related FAQs" titles on the right side shows the kinds of things (allowing for a 40 year gap) covered in my required freshman English composition course.

    – Dave L Renfro
    15 hours ago














  • 24





    There is no "too old to cite". I've actually referenced some of Adolf Fick's and Einstein's original papers in my dissertation. (And they were such fun to read!) Also, that references need to have a certain age is nonsense. Where did you read this?

    – Roland
    16 hours ago






  • 2





    @Roland strictly speaking you are right: as written the OP states that a publication must be older than 2 years before you can cite it. However, given the content of the question I suspect that the OP intended to say that a publication must be younger than 2 years.

    – Maarten Buis
    16 hours ago






  • 2





    No study is too old to cite, but not all studies "age well". Especially in fast paced discipline studies can easily be obsolete. However, this does not mean that all older studies in those disciplines become obsolete, just that many do. You can and should use those non-obsolete older ones.

    – Maarten Buis
    16 hours ago






  • 2





    If you are still allowed to reference Plato, that's more than 10 years...

    – Solar Mike
    15 hours ago








  • 3





    I notice the web page you cited says "A good rule of thumb is" and "is a good benchmark", which is a lot softer than your wording suggests, especially in trying to pin-point the exact suggested constraints. Also, the librarian's answer clearly seems to be designed for undergraduate research papers and projects, and a quick check shows the university serves almost entirely undergraduates. Finally, a look at the "Related FAQs" titles on the right side shows the kinds of things (allowing for a 40 year gap) covered in my required freshman English composition course.

    – Dave L Renfro
    15 hours ago








24




24





There is no "too old to cite". I've actually referenced some of Adolf Fick's and Einstein's original papers in my dissertation. (And they were such fun to read!) Also, that references need to have a certain age is nonsense. Where did you read this?

– Roland
16 hours ago





There is no "too old to cite". I've actually referenced some of Adolf Fick's and Einstein's original papers in my dissertation. (And they were such fun to read!) Also, that references need to have a certain age is nonsense. Where did you read this?

– Roland
16 hours ago




2




2





@Roland strictly speaking you are right: as written the OP states that a publication must be older than 2 years before you can cite it. However, given the content of the question I suspect that the OP intended to say that a publication must be younger than 2 years.

– Maarten Buis
16 hours ago





@Roland strictly speaking you are right: as written the OP states that a publication must be older than 2 years before you can cite it. However, given the content of the question I suspect that the OP intended to say that a publication must be younger than 2 years.

– Maarten Buis
16 hours ago




2




2





No study is too old to cite, but not all studies "age well". Especially in fast paced discipline studies can easily be obsolete. However, this does not mean that all older studies in those disciplines become obsolete, just that many do. You can and should use those non-obsolete older ones.

– Maarten Buis
16 hours ago





No study is too old to cite, but not all studies "age well". Especially in fast paced discipline studies can easily be obsolete. However, this does not mean that all older studies in those disciplines become obsolete, just that many do. You can and should use those non-obsolete older ones.

– Maarten Buis
16 hours ago




2




2





If you are still allowed to reference Plato, that's more than 10 years...

– Solar Mike
15 hours ago







If you are still allowed to reference Plato, that's more than 10 years...

– Solar Mike
15 hours ago






3




3





I notice the web page you cited says "A good rule of thumb is" and "is a good benchmark", which is a lot softer than your wording suggests, especially in trying to pin-point the exact suggested constraints. Also, the librarian's answer clearly seems to be designed for undergraduate research papers and projects, and a quick check shows the university serves almost entirely undergraduates. Finally, a look at the "Related FAQs" titles on the right side shows the kinds of things (allowing for a 40 year gap) covered in my required freshman English composition course.

– Dave L Renfro
15 hours ago





I notice the web page you cited says "A good rule of thumb is" and "is a good benchmark", which is a lot softer than your wording suggests, especially in trying to pin-point the exact suggested constraints. Also, the librarian's answer clearly seems to be designed for undergraduate research papers and projects, and a quick check shows the university serves almost entirely undergraduates. Finally, a look at the "Related FAQs" titles on the right side shows the kinds of things (allowing for a 40 year gap) covered in my required freshman English composition course.

– Dave L Renfro
15 hours ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















36














References can be as old as they need to be to cover the material. I had some that were more than 30 years old. But if all of your references are "old," people are going to want to know why.



You must also be sure you cover the most current research in your field. A few in my own dissertation were for material published in the same year as my own work.



The link given in the comments and the revised question seems to be directed toward undergraduate research assignments, and the "ten years" reference is a part of an example assignment, not a requirement given by the Shapiro Library. The key idea in the link is that references must be "somewhat current."



For a thesis or dissertation, one must cover the field, including both early and very new research.






share|improve this answer





















  • 2





    Indeed, I suspect that when flipping through a typical issue of a typical journal in most any field, one will find several papers whose references include items listed as "to appear", or "forthcoming", or "under review", or "submitted", etc.

    – Dave L Renfro
    15 hours ago






  • 2





    "References can be as old as they need to be" -- while I agree, the link the OP posted suggests that there are assignments saying "Sources must be published in the last 10 years".

    – Ingo
    15 hours ago








  • 1





    @Ingo Well, yes, but that link seems directed at undergraduate research assignments, and in in fact, that "last ten years" bit is prefaced with, "If it’s a requirement for your assignment..." For a doctoral dissertation, one is expected to cover the field.

    – Bob Brown
    15 hours ago






  • 8





    Something worth mentioning might be the difference between referencing research results, where you want to try and have relevant recent material, and referencing ideas, which might predate their use in actual research. For example, In my Master's thesis I referenced a pre-1900 paper by Karl Pearson for an idea he discussed that was important for my research, but then referenced modern research papers for my actual implementation. Another example might be natural selection; depending on the context, Darwin is an obvious reference.

    – anjama
    13 hours ago











  • @AzorAhai You're right. What's missing is, "You must also have the most current research." I'll edit the answer. I deliberately left out the date because the point is that one must cover from "the beginning" to the very most current other work.

    – Bob Brown
    10 hours ago



















7














There is no rule about the age of citations. For example in my PhD-thesis I quoted some math-papers from 1600s that were originally written in latin (but those were exceptions).



Much more relavant than the year is the content of a citation and that you cover the relevant literature.



Also, you might want to include a few (relevant!) citations from recent years in order to show that you did your reading not just at the beginning of your thesis and then ignored everything afterwards.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    In math it is common to cite old papers. 1600s is indeed exceptionally old but it is not uncommon to cite 10-100 years old papers.

    – Yanko
    9 hours ago











  • I would say that it would be a bit unusual for a math paper to have most of its references under ten years old (unless the authors give only a very brief account of the context and there is only a handful of references in all).

    – tomasz
    7 hours ago



















2














A group of researchers published this very interesting paper:



The nearly universal link between the age of past knowledge and tomorrow’s breakthroughs in science and technology: The hotspot



From a pure data science perspective, they try to understand how the distribution of reference age affects the forward citations of an article. They analyze all publications (~ 28 million) in Web of Science published between 1945 - 2013.



Unfortunately, they do not show an aggregated histogram of age differences between a publication and its references. But in Fig. 1 we see the mean (0-50 years) and variance (0-4) for all published papers and it is all over the place. So the take away might be to cite what you want.



However, they echo in their paper the comments and answers that you got here. Impactful and hopefully good research seems to differ from the "cite what you want" approach. If you want to increase the likelihood of your work having an impact you should base your work on recent advances but also be aware of well-established theories or overlooked ideas from the past. They show this in the paper by finding a hotspot of highly cited papers that have a low mean age distance to their references but a high variance in age distance.



Here is a link to the paper (super interesting):
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/3/4/e1601315.full.pdf






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Dimitri Graf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




























    2














    Your rule has a large fraction of exception that you should always consider. Make sure you cite the relevant papers for your claims and that you cite the papers which were the first introducing the idea. Don't cite a textbook for ideas just because they are recent. Instead, try to find and cite the original works.



    If you cite an idea originating back to Aristoteles it does not make sense to use a recent source. The idea is that old! Also, if you want to prove your claim, that some method was used in the 70s, it's useful to cite papers written in the 70s.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 1





      This hits what I consider the key point. Each citation should be appropriate for its purpose. Documenting the origins of a question is different from documenting the state of the art in a rapidly changing research area.

      – Patricia Shanahan
      5 hours ago



















    1














    There's no limit on how old they can be. In biology people often cite Darwin (1859) and geneticists who work on pedigrees can cite government records from hundreds of years ago. Work involving theology may cite the Bible. Historians cite original documents from thousands of years ago. Sometimes a fun game is to see what the oldest citation you can get away with is. Plato or Aristotle is often a safe bet.



    Generally, you are supposed to cite the oldest paper that made a discovery, as the credit belongs to them. When in doubt, you can cite one old and one new paper.



    However, your work must be in the context of contemporary scientific literature. If you cite a 50 year old paper for a theory, you better make sure the theory has not been disproven in another paper published 30 years after. If you say the state of the art in a field is a paper published 10 years ago, it would look really bad if somebody brought up a 5 year old paper that advanced it further. This is why citing old material is risky: You can't easily tell that it's still current. If a paper came out last monday, chances are pretty low that somebody refuted it in that time.






    share|improve this answer
























      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "415"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });






      Muizz Mahdy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f127607%2fhow-old-can-references-or-sources-in-a-thesis-be%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      36














      References can be as old as they need to be to cover the material. I had some that were more than 30 years old. But if all of your references are "old," people are going to want to know why.



      You must also be sure you cover the most current research in your field. A few in my own dissertation were for material published in the same year as my own work.



      The link given in the comments and the revised question seems to be directed toward undergraduate research assignments, and the "ten years" reference is a part of an example assignment, not a requirement given by the Shapiro Library. The key idea in the link is that references must be "somewhat current."



      For a thesis or dissertation, one must cover the field, including both early and very new research.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 2





        Indeed, I suspect that when flipping through a typical issue of a typical journal in most any field, one will find several papers whose references include items listed as "to appear", or "forthcoming", or "under review", or "submitted", etc.

        – Dave L Renfro
        15 hours ago






      • 2





        "References can be as old as they need to be" -- while I agree, the link the OP posted suggests that there are assignments saying "Sources must be published in the last 10 years".

        – Ingo
        15 hours ago








      • 1





        @Ingo Well, yes, but that link seems directed at undergraduate research assignments, and in in fact, that "last ten years" bit is prefaced with, "If it’s a requirement for your assignment..." For a doctoral dissertation, one is expected to cover the field.

        – Bob Brown
        15 hours ago






      • 8





        Something worth mentioning might be the difference between referencing research results, where you want to try and have relevant recent material, and referencing ideas, which might predate their use in actual research. For example, In my Master's thesis I referenced a pre-1900 paper by Karl Pearson for an idea he discussed that was important for my research, but then referenced modern research papers for my actual implementation. Another example might be natural selection; depending on the context, Darwin is an obvious reference.

        – anjama
        13 hours ago











      • @AzorAhai You're right. What's missing is, "You must also have the most current research." I'll edit the answer. I deliberately left out the date because the point is that one must cover from "the beginning" to the very most current other work.

        – Bob Brown
        10 hours ago
















      36














      References can be as old as they need to be to cover the material. I had some that were more than 30 years old. But if all of your references are "old," people are going to want to know why.



      You must also be sure you cover the most current research in your field. A few in my own dissertation were for material published in the same year as my own work.



      The link given in the comments and the revised question seems to be directed toward undergraduate research assignments, and the "ten years" reference is a part of an example assignment, not a requirement given by the Shapiro Library. The key idea in the link is that references must be "somewhat current."



      For a thesis or dissertation, one must cover the field, including both early and very new research.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 2





        Indeed, I suspect that when flipping through a typical issue of a typical journal in most any field, one will find several papers whose references include items listed as "to appear", or "forthcoming", or "under review", or "submitted", etc.

        – Dave L Renfro
        15 hours ago






      • 2





        "References can be as old as they need to be" -- while I agree, the link the OP posted suggests that there are assignments saying "Sources must be published in the last 10 years".

        – Ingo
        15 hours ago








      • 1





        @Ingo Well, yes, but that link seems directed at undergraduate research assignments, and in in fact, that "last ten years" bit is prefaced with, "If it’s a requirement for your assignment..." For a doctoral dissertation, one is expected to cover the field.

        – Bob Brown
        15 hours ago






      • 8





        Something worth mentioning might be the difference between referencing research results, where you want to try and have relevant recent material, and referencing ideas, which might predate their use in actual research. For example, In my Master's thesis I referenced a pre-1900 paper by Karl Pearson for an idea he discussed that was important for my research, but then referenced modern research papers for my actual implementation. Another example might be natural selection; depending on the context, Darwin is an obvious reference.

        – anjama
        13 hours ago











      • @AzorAhai You're right. What's missing is, "You must also have the most current research." I'll edit the answer. I deliberately left out the date because the point is that one must cover from "the beginning" to the very most current other work.

        – Bob Brown
        10 hours ago














      36












      36








      36







      References can be as old as they need to be to cover the material. I had some that were more than 30 years old. But if all of your references are "old," people are going to want to know why.



      You must also be sure you cover the most current research in your field. A few in my own dissertation were for material published in the same year as my own work.



      The link given in the comments and the revised question seems to be directed toward undergraduate research assignments, and the "ten years" reference is a part of an example assignment, not a requirement given by the Shapiro Library. The key idea in the link is that references must be "somewhat current."



      For a thesis or dissertation, one must cover the field, including both early and very new research.






      share|improve this answer















      References can be as old as they need to be to cover the material. I had some that were more than 30 years old. But if all of your references are "old," people are going to want to know why.



      You must also be sure you cover the most current research in your field. A few in my own dissertation were for material published in the same year as my own work.



      The link given in the comments and the revised question seems to be directed toward undergraduate research assignments, and the "ten years" reference is a part of an example assignment, not a requirement given by the Shapiro Library. The key idea in the link is that references must be "somewhat current."



      For a thesis or dissertation, one must cover the field, including both early and very new research.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 9 hours ago

























      answered 15 hours ago









      Bob BrownBob Brown

      20.1k96084




      20.1k96084








      • 2





        Indeed, I suspect that when flipping through a typical issue of a typical journal in most any field, one will find several papers whose references include items listed as "to appear", or "forthcoming", or "under review", or "submitted", etc.

        – Dave L Renfro
        15 hours ago






      • 2





        "References can be as old as they need to be" -- while I agree, the link the OP posted suggests that there are assignments saying "Sources must be published in the last 10 years".

        – Ingo
        15 hours ago








      • 1





        @Ingo Well, yes, but that link seems directed at undergraduate research assignments, and in in fact, that "last ten years" bit is prefaced with, "If it’s a requirement for your assignment..." For a doctoral dissertation, one is expected to cover the field.

        – Bob Brown
        15 hours ago






      • 8





        Something worth mentioning might be the difference between referencing research results, where you want to try and have relevant recent material, and referencing ideas, which might predate their use in actual research. For example, In my Master's thesis I referenced a pre-1900 paper by Karl Pearson for an idea he discussed that was important for my research, but then referenced modern research papers for my actual implementation. Another example might be natural selection; depending on the context, Darwin is an obvious reference.

        – anjama
        13 hours ago











      • @AzorAhai You're right. What's missing is, "You must also have the most current research." I'll edit the answer. I deliberately left out the date because the point is that one must cover from "the beginning" to the very most current other work.

        – Bob Brown
        10 hours ago














      • 2





        Indeed, I suspect that when flipping through a typical issue of a typical journal in most any field, one will find several papers whose references include items listed as "to appear", or "forthcoming", or "under review", or "submitted", etc.

        – Dave L Renfro
        15 hours ago






      • 2





        "References can be as old as they need to be" -- while I agree, the link the OP posted suggests that there are assignments saying "Sources must be published in the last 10 years".

        – Ingo
        15 hours ago








      • 1





        @Ingo Well, yes, but that link seems directed at undergraduate research assignments, and in in fact, that "last ten years" bit is prefaced with, "If it’s a requirement for your assignment..." For a doctoral dissertation, one is expected to cover the field.

        – Bob Brown
        15 hours ago






      • 8





        Something worth mentioning might be the difference between referencing research results, where you want to try and have relevant recent material, and referencing ideas, which might predate their use in actual research. For example, In my Master's thesis I referenced a pre-1900 paper by Karl Pearson for an idea he discussed that was important for my research, but then referenced modern research papers for my actual implementation. Another example might be natural selection; depending on the context, Darwin is an obvious reference.

        – anjama
        13 hours ago











      • @AzorAhai You're right. What's missing is, "You must also have the most current research." I'll edit the answer. I deliberately left out the date because the point is that one must cover from "the beginning" to the very most current other work.

        – Bob Brown
        10 hours ago








      2




      2





      Indeed, I suspect that when flipping through a typical issue of a typical journal in most any field, one will find several papers whose references include items listed as "to appear", or "forthcoming", or "under review", or "submitted", etc.

      – Dave L Renfro
      15 hours ago





      Indeed, I suspect that when flipping through a typical issue of a typical journal in most any field, one will find several papers whose references include items listed as "to appear", or "forthcoming", or "under review", or "submitted", etc.

      – Dave L Renfro
      15 hours ago




      2




      2





      "References can be as old as they need to be" -- while I agree, the link the OP posted suggests that there are assignments saying "Sources must be published in the last 10 years".

      – Ingo
      15 hours ago







      "References can be as old as they need to be" -- while I agree, the link the OP posted suggests that there are assignments saying "Sources must be published in the last 10 years".

      – Ingo
      15 hours ago






      1




      1





      @Ingo Well, yes, but that link seems directed at undergraduate research assignments, and in in fact, that "last ten years" bit is prefaced with, "If it’s a requirement for your assignment..." For a doctoral dissertation, one is expected to cover the field.

      – Bob Brown
      15 hours ago





      @Ingo Well, yes, but that link seems directed at undergraduate research assignments, and in in fact, that "last ten years" bit is prefaced with, "If it’s a requirement for your assignment..." For a doctoral dissertation, one is expected to cover the field.

      – Bob Brown
      15 hours ago




      8




      8





      Something worth mentioning might be the difference between referencing research results, where you want to try and have relevant recent material, and referencing ideas, which might predate their use in actual research. For example, In my Master's thesis I referenced a pre-1900 paper by Karl Pearson for an idea he discussed that was important for my research, but then referenced modern research papers for my actual implementation. Another example might be natural selection; depending on the context, Darwin is an obvious reference.

      – anjama
      13 hours ago





      Something worth mentioning might be the difference between referencing research results, where you want to try and have relevant recent material, and referencing ideas, which might predate their use in actual research. For example, In my Master's thesis I referenced a pre-1900 paper by Karl Pearson for an idea he discussed that was important for my research, but then referenced modern research papers for my actual implementation. Another example might be natural selection; depending on the context, Darwin is an obvious reference.

      – anjama
      13 hours ago













      @AzorAhai You're right. What's missing is, "You must also have the most current research." I'll edit the answer. I deliberately left out the date because the point is that one must cover from "the beginning" to the very most current other work.

      – Bob Brown
      10 hours ago





      @AzorAhai You're right. What's missing is, "You must also have the most current research." I'll edit the answer. I deliberately left out the date because the point is that one must cover from "the beginning" to the very most current other work.

      – Bob Brown
      10 hours ago











      7














      There is no rule about the age of citations. For example in my PhD-thesis I quoted some math-papers from 1600s that were originally written in latin (but those were exceptions).



      Much more relavant than the year is the content of a citation and that you cover the relevant literature.



      Also, you might want to include a few (relevant!) citations from recent years in order to show that you did your reading not just at the beginning of your thesis and then ignored everything afterwards.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 1





        In math it is common to cite old papers. 1600s is indeed exceptionally old but it is not uncommon to cite 10-100 years old papers.

        – Yanko
        9 hours ago











      • I would say that it would be a bit unusual for a math paper to have most of its references under ten years old (unless the authors give only a very brief account of the context and there is only a handful of references in all).

        – tomasz
        7 hours ago
















      7














      There is no rule about the age of citations. For example in my PhD-thesis I quoted some math-papers from 1600s that were originally written in latin (but those were exceptions).



      Much more relavant than the year is the content of a citation and that you cover the relevant literature.



      Also, you might want to include a few (relevant!) citations from recent years in order to show that you did your reading not just at the beginning of your thesis and then ignored everything afterwards.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 1





        In math it is common to cite old papers. 1600s is indeed exceptionally old but it is not uncommon to cite 10-100 years old papers.

        – Yanko
        9 hours ago











      • I would say that it would be a bit unusual for a math paper to have most of its references under ten years old (unless the authors give only a very brief account of the context and there is only a handful of references in all).

        – tomasz
        7 hours ago














      7












      7








      7







      There is no rule about the age of citations. For example in my PhD-thesis I quoted some math-papers from 1600s that were originally written in latin (but those were exceptions).



      Much more relavant than the year is the content of a citation and that you cover the relevant literature.



      Also, you might want to include a few (relevant!) citations from recent years in order to show that you did your reading not just at the beginning of your thesis and then ignored everything afterwards.






      share|improve this answer













      There is no rule about the age of citations. For example in my PhD-thesis I quoted some math-papers from 1600s that were originally written in latin (but those were exceptions).



      Much more relavant than the year is the content of a citation and that you cover the relevant literature.



      Also, you might want to include a few (relevant!) citations from recent years in order to show that you did your reading not just at the beginning of your thesis and then ignored everything afterwards.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 11 hours ago









      lordylordy

      68115




      68115








      • 1





        In math it is common to cite old papers. 1600s is indeed exceptionally old but it is not uncommon to cite 10-100 years old papers.

        – Yanko
        9 hours ago











      • I would say that it would be a bit unusual for a math paper to have most of its references under ten years old (unless the authors give only a very brief account of the context and there is only a handful of references in all).

        – tomasz
        7 hours ago














      • 1





        In math it is common to cite old papers. 1600s is indeed exceptionally old but it is not uncommon to cite 10-100 years old papers.

        – Yanko
        9 hours ago











      • I would say that it would be a bit unusual for a math paper to have most of its references under ten years old (unless the authors give only a very brief account of the context and there is only a handful of references in all).

        – tomasz
        7 hours ago








      1




      1





      In math it is common to cite old papers. 1600s is indeed exceptionally old but it is not uncommon to cite 10-100 years old papers.

      – Yanko
      9 hours ago





      In math it is common to cite old papers. 1600s is indeed exceptionally old but it is not uncommon to cite 10-100 years old papers.

      – Yanko
      9 hours ago













      I would say that it would be a bit unusual for a math paper to have most of its references under ten years old (unless the authors give only a very brief account of the context and there is only a handful of references in all).

      – tomasz
      7 hours ago





      I would say that it would be a bit unusual for a math paper to have most of its references under ten years old (unless the authors give only a very brief account of the context and there is only a handful of references in all).

      – tomasz
      7 hours ago











      2














      A group of researchers published this very interesting paper:



      The nearly universal link between the age of past knowledge and tomorrow’s breakthroughs in science and technology: The hotspot



      From a pure data science perspective, they try to understand how the distribution of reference age affects the forward citations of an article. They analyze all publications (~ 28 million) in Web of Science published between 1945 - 2013.



      Unfortunately, they do not show an aggregated histogram of age differences between a publication and its references. But in Fig. 1 we see the mean (0-50 years) and variance (0-4) for all published papers and it is all over the place. So the take away might be to cite what you want.



      However, they echo in their paper the comments and answers that you got here. Impactful and hopefully good research seems to differ from the "cite what you want" approach. If you want to increase the likelihood of your work having an impact you should base your work on recent advances but also be aware of well-established theories or overlooked ideas from the past. They show this in the paper by finding a hotspot of highly cited papers that have a low mean age distance to their references but a high variance in age distance.



      Here is a link to the paper (super interesting):
      http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/3/4/e1601315.full.pdf






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Dimitri Graf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.

























        2














        A group of researchers published this very interesting paper:



        The nearly universal link between the age of past knowledge and tomorrow’s breakthroughs in science and technology: The hotspot



        From a pure data science perspective, they try to understand how the distribution of reference age affects the forward citations of an article. They analyze all publications (~ 28 million) in Web of Science published between 1945 - 2013.



        Unfortunately, they do not show an aggregated histogram of age differences between a publication and its references. But in Fig. 1 we see the mean (0-50 years) and variance (0-4) for all published papers and it is all over the place. So the take away might be to cite what you want.



        However, they echo in their paper the comments and answers that you got here. Impactful and hopefully good research seems to differ from the "cite what you want" approach. If you want to increase the likelihood of your work having an impact you should base your work on recent advances but also be aware of well-established theories or overlooked ideas from the past. They show this in the paper by finding a hotspot of highly cited papers that have a low mean age distance to their references but a high variance in age distance.



        Here is a link to the paper (super interesting):
        http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/3/4/e1601315.full.pdf






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Dimitri Graf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.























          2












          2








          2







          A group of researchers published this very interesting paper:



          The nearly universal link between the age of past knowledge and tomorrow’s breakthroughs in science and technology: The hotspot



          From a pure data science perspective, they try to understand how the distribution of reference age affects the forward citations of an article. They analyze all publications (~ 28 million) in Web of Science published between 1945 - 2013.



          Unfortunately, they do not show an aggregated histogram of age differences between a publication and its references. But in Fig. 1 we see the mean (0-50 years) and variance (0-4) for all published papers and it is all over the place. So the take away might be to cite what you want.



          However, they echo in their paper the comments and answers that you got here. Impactful and hopefully good research seems to differ from the "cite what you want" approach. If you want to increase the likelihood of your work having an impact you should base your work on recent advances but also be aware of well-established theories or overlooked ideas from the past. They show this in the paper by finding a hotspot of highly cited papers that have a low mean age distance to their references but a high variance in age distance.



          Here is a link to the paper (super interesting):
          http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/3/4/e1601315.full.pdf






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Dimitri Graf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.










          A group of researchers published this very interesting paper:



          The nearly universal link between the age of past knowledge and tomorrow’s breakthroughs in science and technology: The hotspot



          From a pure data science perspective, they try to understand how the distribution of reference age affects the forward citations of an article. They analyze all publications (~ 28 million) in Web of Science published between 1945 - 2013.



          Unfortunately, they do not show an aggregated histogram of age differences between a publication and its references. But in Fig. 1 we see the mean (0-50 years) and variance (0-4) for all published papers and it is all over the place. So the take away might be to cite what you want.



          However, they echo in their paper the comments and answers that you got here. Impactful and hopefully good research seems to differ from the "cite what you want" approach. If you want to increase the likelihood of your work having an impact you should base your work on recent advances but also be aware of well-established theories or overlooked ideas from the past. They show this in the paper by finding a hotspot of highly cited papers that have a low mean age distance to their references but a high variance in age distance.



          Here is a link to the paper (super interesting):
          http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/3/4/e1601315.full.pdf







          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Dimitri Graf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer






          New contributor




          Dimitri Graf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered 6 hours ago









          Dimitri GrafDimitri Graf

          232




          232




          New contributor




          Dimitri Graf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          Dimitri Graf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          Dimitri Graf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.























              2














              Your rule has a large fraction of exception that you should always consider. Make sure you cite the relevant papers for your claims and that you cite the papers which were the first introducing the idea. Don't cite a textbook for ideas just because they are recent. Instead, try to find and cite the original works.



              If you cite an idea originating back to Aristoteles it does not make sense to use a recent source. The idea is that old! Also, if you want to prove your claim, that some method was used in the 70s, it's useful to cite papers written in the 70s.






              share|improve this answer





















              • 1





                This hits what I consider the key point. Each citation should be appropriate for its purpose. Documenting the origins of a question is different from documenting the state of the art in a rapidly changing research area.

                – Patricia Shanahan
                5 hours ago
















              2














              Your rule has a large fraction of exception that you should always consider. Make sure you cite the relevant papers for your claims and that you cite the papers which were the first introducing the idea. Don't cite a textbook for ideas just because they are recent. Instead, try to find and cite the original works.



              If you cite an idea originating back to Aristoteles it does not make sense to use a recent source. The idea is that old! Also, if you want to prove your claim, that some method was used in the 70s, it's useful to cite papers written in the 70s.






              share|improve this answer





















              • 1





                This hits what I consider the key point. Each citation should be appropriate for its purpose. Documenting the origins of a question is different from documenting the state of the art in a rapidly changing research area.

                – Patricia Shanahan
                5 hours ago














              2












              2








              2







              Your rule has a large fraction of exception that you should always consider. Make sure you cite the relevant papers for your claims and that you cite the papers which were the first introducing the idea. Don't cite a textbook for ideas just because they are recent. Instead, try to find and cite the original works.



              If you cite an idea originating back to Aristoteles it does not make sense to use a recent source. The idea is that old! Also, if you want to prove your claim, that some method was used in the 70s, it's useful to cite papers written in the 70s.






              share|improve this answer















              Your rule has a large fraction of exception that you should always consider. Make sure you cite the relevant papers for your claims and that you cite the papers which were the first introducing the idea. Don't cite a textbook for ideas just because they are recent. Instead, try to find and cite the original works.



              If you cite an idea originating back to Aristoteles it does not make sense to use a recent source. The idea is that old! Also, if you want to prove your claim, that some method was used in the 70s, it's useful to cite papers written in the 70s.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited 1 hour ago









              Dimitri Graf

              232




              232










              answered 6 hours ago









              usr1234567usr1234567

              2,145318




              2,145318








              • 1





                This hits what I consider the key point. Each citation should be appropriate for its purpose. Documenting the origins of a question is different from documenting the state of the art in a rapidly changing research area.

                – Patricia Shanahan
                5 hours ago














              • 1





                This hits what I consider the key point. Each citation should be appropriate for its purpose. Documenting the origins of a question is different from documenting the state of the art in a rapidly changing research area.

                – Patricia Shanahan
                5 hours ago








              1




              1





              This hits what I consider the key point. Each citation should be appropriate for its purpose. Documenting the origins of a question is different from documenting the state of the art in a rapidly changing research area.

              – Patricia Shanahan
              5 hours ago





              This hits what I consider the key point. Each citation should be appropriate for its purpose. Documenting the origins of a question is different from documenting the state of the art in a rapidly changing research area.

              – Patricia Shanahan
              5 hours ago











              1














              There's no limit on how old they can be. In biology people often cite Darwin (1859) and geneticists who work on pedigrees can cite government records from hundreds of years ago. Work involving theology may cite the Bible. Historians cite original documents from thousands of years ago. Sometimes a fun game is to see what the oldest citation you can get away with is. Plato or Aristotle is often a safe bet.



              Generally, you are supposed to cite the oldest paper that made a discovery, as the credit belongs to them. When in doubt, you can cite one old and one new paper.



              However, your work must be in the context of contemporary scientific literature. If you cite a 50 year old paper for a theory, you better make sure the theory has not been disproven in another paper published 30 years after. If you say the state of the art in a field is a paper published 10 years ago, it would look really bad if somebody brought up a 5 year old paper that advanced it further. This is why citing old material is risky: You can't easily tell that it's still current. If a paper came out last monday, chances are pretty low that somebody refuted it in that time.






              share|improve this answer




























                1














                There's no limit on how old they can be. In biology people often cite Darwin (1859) and geneticists who work on pedigrees can cite government records from hundreds of years ago. Work involving theology may cite the Bible. Historians cite original documents from thousands of years ago. Sometimes a fun game is to see what the oldest citation you can get away with is. Plato or Aristotle is often a safe bet.



                Generally, you are supposed to cite the oldest paper that made a discovery, as the credit belongs to them. When in doubt, you can cite one old and one new paper.



                However, your work must be in the context of contemporary scientific literature. If you cite a 50 year old paper for a theory, you better make sure the theory has not been disproven in another paper published 30 years after. If you say the state of the art in a field is a paper published 10 years ago, it would look really bad if somebody brought up a 5 year old paper that advanced it further. This is why citing old material is risky: You can't easily tell that it's still current. If a paper came out last monday, chances are pretty low that somebody refuted it in that time.






                share|improve this answer


























                  1












                  1








                  1







                  There's no limit on how old they can be. In biology people often cite Darwin (1859) and geneticists who work on pedigrees can cite government records from hundreds of years ago. Work involving theology may cite the Bible. Historians cite original documents from thousands of years ago. Sometimes a fun game is to see what the oldest citation you can get away with is. Plato or Aristotle is often a safe bet.



                  Generally, you are supposed to cite the oldest paper that made a discovery, as the credit belongs to them. When in doubt, you can cite one old and one new paper.



                  However, your work must be in the context of contemporary scientific literature. If you cite a 50 year old paper for a theory, you better make sure the theory has not been disproven in another paper published 30 years after. If you say the state of the art in a field is a paper published 10 years ago, it would look really bad if somebody brought up a 5 year old paper that advanced it further. This is why citing old material is risky: You can't easily tell that it's still current. If a paper came out last monday, chances are pretty low that somebody refuted it in that time.






                  share|improve this answer













                  There's no limit on how old they can be. In biology people often cite Darwin (1859) and geneticists who work on pedigrees can cite government records from hundreds of years ago. Work involving theology may cite the Bible. Historians cite original documents from thousands of years ago. Sometimes a fun game is to see what the oldest citation you can get away with is. Plato or Aristotle is often a safe bet.



                  Generally, you are supposed to cite the oldest paper that made a discovery, as the credit belongs to them. When in doubt, you can cite one old and one new paper.



                  However, your work must be in the context of contemporary scientific literature. If you cite a 50 year old paper for a theory, you better make sure the theory has not been disproven in another paper published 30 years after. If you say the state of the art in a field is a paper published 10 years ago, it would look really bad if somebody brought up a 5 year old paper that advanced it further. This is why citing old material is risky: You can't easily tell that it's still current. If a paper came out last monday, chances are pretty low that somebody refuted it in that time.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 3 hours ago









                  TruslyTrusly

                  94419




                  94419






















                      Muizz Mahdy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      Muizz Mahdy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                      Muizz Mahdy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Muizz Mahdy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f127607%2fhow-old-can-references-or-sources-in-a-thesis-be%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Knooppunt Holsloot

                      Altaar (religie)

                      Gregoriusmis