Some comments to yesterday's post reminded me of something I have been wondering:
If you are the (or a) major author on a paper submitted for review, how many of the references you cite have you read?
My adviser in graduate school told me that I should read every article that I cite. Minor co-authors can use their discretion about which ones to read/not read, but if you're the main author, you should read all cited works.
I think we can assume that 'read' means that you read more than the abstract but didn't necessarily spend hours poring over every word in every section, although you may well have done so, especially for a thesis.
So: For articles (or the moral equivalent) on which you are what could reasonably be considered a major author according to the norms of your field:
If you are the (or a) major author on a paper submitted for review, how many of the references you cite have you read?
My adviser in graduate school told me that I should read every article that I cite. Minor co-authors can use their discretion about which ones to read/not read, but if you're the main author, you should read all cited works.
I think we can assume that 'read' means that you read more than the abstract but didn't necessarily spend hours poring over every word in every section, although you may well have done so, especially for a thesis.
So: For articles (or the moral equivalent) on which you are what could reasonably be considered a major author according to the norms of your field: