RULES FOR REFERENCES: SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR CHOOSING LITERARY CITATIONS FOR RESEARCH ARTICLES IN APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY
针对应用心理学及相关领域研究文章中引用文献缺乏证据支持的问题，调查约300位审稿人意见，提炼出多数同意的引用规则指南，供审稿人、研究者和学生使用。
Have you ever looked up a reference cited in a research article and found that it offered little in the way of proof or evidence for the point it was used to support?Or, worse yet, it had nothing to do with the point at all.This common occurrence leads to concerns about quality control in the referencing process.There is almost nothing helpful written on this topic, and few people in the profession can even identify how they learned to do it.Therefore, we conducted a survey of reviewers' opinions of the proper rules for when and how references should be used to support points made in research articles in applied psychology and related fields.Approximately 300 reviewers responded to the survey, or about twothirds of the 450 asked.They included the editorial board and ad hoc reviewers for Personnel Psychology, and the boards of Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, and Academy of Management Review.The reviewers' opinions were distilled into a set of rules or guidelines for proper referencing in research articles.Only those rules that the vast majority of reviewers agreed with were retained.This set of suggested guidelines is like the Article Review Checklist (published as an editorial in the Fall, 1993 issue).As with the Checklist, these rules are not meant to be applied in some mechanical fashion or to replace the good judgment of the scientist.Instead, they are meant to be reminders of good practice in typical situations.We hope these "rules for references'' will be a useful tool for reviewers, researchers, and students. Rules for References1. References are generally considered essential for the following purposes when writing research articles: a.To acknowledge the source of a finding, theoq, definition, technique, instrument, formula, or some other piece of information.b.To recognize simiiar findings, theories, ideas, or opinions.c.To recognize contradictory or different findings.