Citations in Academic Writing: Do You Have the Receipts?

How is academic writing different from writing an essay or even a term paper? The biggest difference, in my opinion, is the need for citations. Citations are the "receipts" that prove your arguments. Here are some do's and don'ts to help you cite right:

Cite Often

“The link between obesity and carbohydrate intake has been studied at length in other research with inconsistent results.”

Citations, please! By citing who did this work, you prove it has been done.

“These differences could be due to the fact that women have been shown to have more complex internal dialog regarding dietary decision-making than men.”

Citations, please! Where has that been shown?

"Studies report improved glycemic control when nuts are added to the diet.¹”

More citations, please! You said studies – multiple – but only cite one. Unless it’s a review or meta-analysis, you should cite more than one study.

Cite Early

Not everyone cites early, but it helps minimize confusion. What do I mean when I say, “cite early”? If you have a couple of sentences in a row that are referring to one source, cite that source in the first sentence rather than at the end of the sentence group.

DON’T DO THIS: “One paper included in this review provided food assistance via meal kit delivery services to address food insecurity. The findings indicated significant improvements in food security status. For example, approximately 66% of the study population classified as very-low food security status at baseline, but just 24% of the population identified as such post-intervention.⁴” <-- first time the study is cited, but I have been wondering which study it was for several sentences.

DO THIS: “One paper included in this review provided food assistance via meal kit delivery services to address food insecurity.⁴  [<-- first time the study is cited.]  The findings indicated significant improvements in food security status. For example, approximately 66% of the study population classified as very-low food security status at baseline, but just 24% of the population identified as such post-intervention.”

Why cite early? Because when I don’t see the citation at first, I don’t know which study you’re talking about, and I wonder if you forgot to cite it. It distracts me and takes me out of the flow of your writing.

Cite the Right Study for the Right Claim

Not all citations are created equal. One of the most common citation mistakes I see in manuscript review is citing a study as evidence for a claim that the study did not actually test.

Here's an example: Starting the Conversation (STC) is a dietary assessment tool that has been validated for use in college populations — meaning researchers have statistically tested whether it accurately captures what it claims to measure. If you use STC in your study and write:

"STC has been shown to be a valid tool to capture changes in dietary patterns in college students (Smith, 2018; Jones, 2020)."

...but Smith and Jones simply used STC in their studies without testing its validity, you have not proven your claim. You've only demonstrated that other people used the tool. That's not the same thing, and a savvy reviewer will call you out on it. This will undermine your credibility as weak citation support for your methods undermines confidence in your results.

DON'T DO THIS: Cite studies that used a tool as proof that the tool is valid.

DO THIS: Cite the validation study. That's the paper that statistically tested the tool's reliability and validity in your population. If no validation study exists for your specific population, say so, and explain why you think it's the best tool to use in your situation.

Balance Seminal and Recent Work

When you build an argument in academic writing, your citations need to do two things: acknowledge where an idea came from (the seminal, or important, work(s)) and demonstrate that the idea is still supported by current evidence (recent work).

One example you might be familiar with is Bandura's Social Learning Theory, which later morphed into Social Cognitive Theory. If you're writing about health behavior change, you should cite Bandura's foundational work because it established the theoretical framework your argument is built on. But if your reference list stops there, reviewers will notice. The field has continued to develop, test, and refine Social Cognitive Theory for five decades! If you only cite the original paper, it suggests you're not current with the literature.

The reverse mistake is equally common: citing only recent studies without acknowledging the foundational work that made them possible. This mistake misrepresents the history of the field and can read as a gap in your knowledge of the literature. Here are some examples that illustrate these ideas:

DON'T DO THIS: "Health behavior change is best understood through Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986)." — one foundational citation, nothing recent.

DON'T DO THIS: Cite only 2020–2026 studies on self-efficacy and behavior change with no acknowledgment of where the concept originated.

DO THIS: Cite the seminal paper to establish the theoretical foundation, then support your specific argument with recent studies that apply, test, or extend the theory in populations or contexts relevant to your work.

A useful rule of thumb: your foundational citations establish the "why this matters" and your recent citations establish the "what we know now."

So, cite early and cite often. Cite the right studies that support your arguments. Balance the foundational work with the most recent advances. When in doubt, cite!

Need help with your academic writing? Book an appointment: https://www.absolutelyenglish.com/book-online

Back to the Blog