you might be surprised when checking references that often they don't support the views held in the paper referencing them

some authors also like to pile up a ton of references as they assume this gives their paper more credibility

i have seen some authors who even cite the references of the reference they cited if i had done that with my last two books i would still be preparing the reference section

thanks
coach hale
www.maxcondition.com

It is much more complex than described, but you touch on an interesting topic. The world of academia is NOT immune to the same types of dishonesty that plague other professions. They study and write for their livelihoods and times can get tough. Those who are innately more inclined to cut corners and bend the rules (see highly intelligent people who are used to doing things their own way and getting ahead) also belong to this group.

So yes, check your references if you like, but if you want to the best, most reliable research: check the journal. Highly reputable journals will contain -- to a far lesser degree -- these sorts of malpractices.

Trust no one. The only way to really check anything out is to read all of the whole papers referenced.

I'd like to see your references for this ...

Exactly. The only way to get a book out of the library is to read it first in its entirety (1).


(1)

journals are subject to bias and only reporting a portion of the information as well
but as mentioned are less likely to mis-represent than the popular fitness mags


Yes, i also agree question everything no one gets a free pass especially when providing information supposedly derived from Primary scientific study

thanks
coach hale
www.maxcondition.com

Popular Diets: A scientific review by Freedman, King and Kennedy


example indicating referal to reference that refutes proclamation, and is an attempt lends credibility of statements due to high number of references listed , doesn't necessarily mean good

"Studies cited by Atkins to support his contentions were of limited duration, conducted on a small number of people, lacked adequate controls, and used ill-defined diets. Some of these, as well as other studies, actually refute the contention that low-cho diets, in the absence of energy restriction, provide a metabolic advantage."

thanks
coach hale
www.maxcondition.com