I guess this is technically homework help, but I’m really looking for a guideline. I’m in the middle of writing a paper on NMR, focusing on COSY, NOESY, and HETCOR. Thing is, I don’t really know anything about that sort of NMR, so my paper is heavily reliant on monographs and papers. That doesn’t inherently bother me, because this particular paper is clearly said in the syllabus to be a library research paper. To me, that means it isn’t supposed to be new research or anything like that and so it’s not like I have to come up with a completely new explanation. However, it basically means that I’m poring through these monographs and papers and simplifying and somewhat restating the concepts. So I’ve got whole paragraphs where all the concepts come from a particular paper or monograph along with figures, tables, and so on. I’m also probably not the only one in this boat. Someone else pulled an assignment on some analytical technique neither of us had ever heard of.
I guess what I’m getting at is that I have now written lots and lots of words that describe general concepts and ways of describing facts. These concepts are explained to me by someone else, in this case the author of the monograph or paper. Those author’s words, of course, are probably attributable to wherever he got the info for his monograph from, and so on and so forth until we get all the way back to the primary literature. So how do I cite this? Do I put an endnote on what is basically every other sentence? Do I give a reference every time I start a new paragraph or change who I’m referencing? I’ve already got most of the figures independently cited, should I go with that or is it overkill? I figure it can’t be plagarism if everything is cited properly, even if it’s nothing really new. Look at a review. Often 300 or more references, sometimes hundred of pages, and it’s mostly collecting and reporting highlights of what other people did before the reviewer put it all together.
Generally, unless the concepts you’re discussing a either common knowledge, or facts already known to you, if you’ve sourced them from someone else’s work, you should reference them, no matter how many times you need to insert a reference. If you’ve used direct quotes, have used their content, even if rephrased, or reproduced tables, figures or lists of figures, you need to reference them.
You might want to look for a copy of a literature review paper for an example of how this works.
I’d suggest that for the sake of academic honesty, you reference an author every time you use their work, or where you’ve combined information, from all the authors.
What kind of referencing system are you using, because in-text citations with a bibliography makes this a lot easier, i.e. for a single reference, (Blogs, R. & Chapel, S. 1979), or where you’ve used multiple references, (Woodhouse, E. 1981; Dickens, C. 1990; Peterson, M. 2004).
You’ll need to check the specific style guide for whatever system you’re using.
Definitely ACS-style references, mostly because of the papers, and probably will use endnotes. It’s possible to do an in-text citation with that style but it’s not common. I have no problem with giving a full-blown page or two of endnotes if needed. As I said, little of this is my own work, so full references are essential for academic honesty. Most of it is common knowledge among NMR people but not to the public at large (otherwise I would already know all this.)