OnlineBookClub.org

I really wish this book had included some source citations, even just simple footnotes for some of the information. As someone from an academic background, I really think this adds credibility and aids readers who are looking for more, especially in a world filled with false information. I do not think the authors were being dishonest, either intentionally or unintentionally, but just a few footnote citations would have improved my view of the book. Especially in circumstances where the authors say something like "one study found that", I think including a citation is really important for the authors' credibility and giving credit to the team that did the "one study".

I do realize that it was supposed to be a practical and accessible guide and that packing it full of references to scientific articles would impede that goal, but I think there has to be some middle ground. What are other peoples' thoughts on this?

I agree that a few citations would have been helpful and lend credibility to what the authors were referencing. It would have also been helpful to see a bibliography since it is obvious that all of the information did not come just from them and their professional work. The "Suggested Further Reading" does seem quite comprehensive, though.

I think you're right. When I read a book which refers to information from other sources, I like to have the chance to check those for myself. In this case, I would've preferred this not because I think the authors were in any way dishonest, but because certain topics or methods piqued my interest enough so that I wanted to further educate myself. A "References" section at the end of the book would have been nice and useful.

Catie139 wrote:
> I agree that a few citations would have been helpful and lend credibility
> to what the authors were referencing. It would have also been helpful to
> see a bibliography since it is obvious that all of the information did not
> come just from them and their professional work. The "Suggested
> Further Reading" does seem quite comprehensive, though.

There are a lot of references in the recommended reading that was appear to be both reference materials they used and other literature for interested reading. I think it would make it more accessible for the reader if they appended each of these “suggested readings” to a footnote to an appropriate location in the book, and it would not be too difficult of an addition.

Your opinion is correct. Citation is a stamp of research and enhances the user's acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the written content. However, although Kinrys might have left that out, it doesn't affect the core message or its impactfulness to me as a reader.

B00kN1nja wrote:
> I really wish this book had included some source citations, even just
> simple footnotes for some of the information.

Could the author have assumed that noone would question his opinion, since he is an MD?

djr6090 wrote:
> B00kN1nja wrote:
> > I really wish this book had included some source citations, even just
> > simple footnotes for some of the information.
>
> Could the author have assumed that noone would question his opinion, since he is an
> MD?

I don't think that was Gustavo's intention. I think we should read the book with an open mind and extract the practical guidelines given.

While I can't say that I often actually look up the references in a book I'm reading; I do feel that having them present lends credibility to what the author is saying, no matter what his/her credentials might be. You're right; all those ideas didn't come straight from him. Putting in footnotes doesn't mean he's having to prove what he's saying is true. It means that the reader is being given information that will help them delve deeper into the subject(s) being discussed.

Actually, I fail to see how including citations would have made this practical guide any less accessible - the authors could have easily used less obtrusive methods of citations such as the number reference system. Readers who are interested in verifying the truth of the statements / finding out more could pursue the original sources in further detail if they wished to, and those that are satisfied with the explanations in the book can just ignore them.

I am generally sceptical of non-fiction books which fail to include citations – I don't think we should take the opinions of one or two authors at face value.

> I really wish this book had included some source citations, even just simple footnotes for some of the information.

Yes, if that was my college essay the professor wouldn't have accepted XD

[quote=djr6090 post_id=1489423 time=1596720863 user_id=1366642]
B00kN1nja wrote:
> I really wish this book had included some source citations, even just
> simple footnotes for some of the information.

Could the author have assumed that noone would question his opinion, since he is an MD?
[/quote]

That's not how it works, if you use an argument like "A study say that..." you need to provide the source or else anyone could just fake those. It's like, the first thin you learn. I had a teacher that didn't even graded work that didn't had sources, even if you had just forgot one and put all the rest it was a zero.

Yes, a citation is definitely useful if we want to know more about the topic prescribed. I would help us know more about the topic as there is always something you need to leave out when you are writing these in the book. In such cases, citations would have been quite convenient.

djr6090 wrote:
> B00kN1nja wrote:
> > I really wish this book had included some source citations, even just
> > simple footnotes for some of the information.
>
> Could the author have assumed that noone would question his opinion, since he is an
> MD?

Not necessarily. I think there is a limit to what you can put in the book. I think if the author would have given all the things in total detail it would be a huge sized book. And personally I would not have then read a 1000 page book about remedies for stress. A short book with the necessary things is effective. Citations would have been therefore a welcome addition for those who want to know more about the topic.

Kelyn wrote:
> While I can't say that I often actually look up the references in a book
> I'm reading; I do feel that having them present lends credibility to what
> the author is saying, no matter what his/her credentials might be. You're
> right; all those ideas didn't come straight from him. Putting in footnotes
> doesn't mean he's having to prove what he's saying is true. It means that
> the reader is being given information that will help them delve deeper into
> the subject(s) being discussed.

Yes, same I generally gloss over most citations in non-fiction books. It is only when I am intrigued and really want to know more about the things mentioned I would check them and see other uses of those topics.

xsquare wrote:
> Actually, I fail to see how including citations would have made this
> practical guide any less accessible - the authors could have easily used
> less obtrusive methods of citations such as the number reference system.
> Readers who are interested in verifying the truth of the statements /
> finding out more could pursue the original sources in further detail if
> they wished to, and those that are satisfied with the explanations in the
> book can just ignore them.
>
> I am generally sceptical of non-fiction books which fail to include
> citations – I don't think we should take the opinions of one or two authors
> at face value.

Your statements are true. But although the citations haven't been included, I'm pretty sure you can connect with what the book says.