Parenthetical in-text citations are a mainstay of many academic journals. They are distracting. But more importantly, they edge authors toward eliminating explanatory footnotes. I suggest it is best to use footnotes for all citations and to describe the main thesis of the article cited, clarify the context, and distinguish the facts or context. Law reviews thrive on footnotes. When journals require parenthetical in-text citations, they pose significant issues for authors. This practice may lead authors to eliminate an avenue to describe the context of the claim, mischaracterize a source’s viewpoint resulting in defamation or errors of omission, and plagiarize. Dishonesty, cheating, and plagiarism are hot topics. Footnotes may prevent authors from making incorrect implications and readers from drawing incorrect inferences. Journals using in-text citations often discourage footnotes, although they will permit some. Reference or “works cited” lists do not contain explanatory parentheticals as they are detached from the claim in the text.

Context

Parenthetical in-text citations leave no room to explain the context. An example commonly found in law is case law based on totally different fact patterns or rule contexts. For example, an important footnote in US v. Carolene Products sets forth the concept of strict scrutiny. When people cite the case sometimes it is relevant that the case was about “filled milk”, i.e., milk that contained oils or any non-milk fat. The famous footnote 4 states that there may be circumstances in which a law would be more strictly scrutinized if it targeted a “discrete and insular minorities.” The text of the footnote describes that those alienated from the process of getting rid of a discriminatory law may be justified in having the court apply strict scrutiny to the law. However, it is a case using a rational-basis test for the constitutionality of a law that does not target a protected or vulnerable group. And it is really about milk.

Example

1. A state passed a law that says churches must be cleaned weekly. Strict scrutiny should apply to a law that targets a religious group (U.S. v. Carolene Products).
2. A state passed a law that says churches must be cleaned weekly. Strict scrutiny should apply to a law that targets a religious group.¹

¹ U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938) (holding that a rational relationship to public health and safety justified a law prohibiting non-milk fats and oils from being added to milk sold in interstate commerce; see footnote 4, which sets the stage for strict scrutiny, suggesting a different standard would apply to laws that target groups who may be disenfranchised and less able to influence law and policy through the democratic process.)

In example A, a reader could think that the Carolene Products case was about the free exercise of religion. A reader could misinterpret the cited source in the in-text parenthetical and be inclined to use the author’s work including the citation incorrectly. A reasonable yet incorrect inference may lead to a reader concluding, “Carolene Products held that strict scrutiny should apply to laws that may infringe the free exercise of religion.”

In example B, the reader would have a better understanding of the case and would be unlikely to mis-cite it if researching to write about strict scrutiny or free exercise. Yet, the information is an “aside” as far as the paragraph goes. A reader skimming the primary text is not distracted as the footnote is at the bottom of the page – there for the person seeking clarification. The footnote allows the sentences to flow without researcher or case names.

Mischaracterize a viewpoint in the cited source

I was recently working with an author who cited an article describing “nonexperiential harm.” The context in which the author was referring to such harm was organ donation and the harm of having something removed from the corpse in an unexpected or unauthorized way. Yet, the article cited referred to the nonexperiential harm resulting from a failure to retrieve organs and use them for transplant had a donor wanted them to be so used. While both the author and the cited article concerned post-death organ transplant, the article was asserting a nearly opposite nonexperiential harm from that which the author described. A simple parenthetical in the footnote would easily ensure readers that the author did not take the concept out of context, but rather applied the concept to a different context purposely. This is a definitional use of the cited text. But an in-line parenthetical (or a nonexplanatory footnote – merely a citation) would not do justice to the difference in viewpoint. And such a lapse would imply that the cited text used the term the same way or similarly, especially if the parenthetical were at the end of the full sentence rather than right after the phrase.

Footnotes allow authors to distinguish sources used for defining concepts from sources used for applying concepts. For example, some authors make assumptions about (or believe in) artificial general intelligence. In the following sentence, the definition of artificial general intelligence comes from a book that doubts its potential existence. The sentence, including the quotation, defines a concept.

Example

1. Artificial general intelligence is the idea that AI will “exceed all expressions of human-specific intelligence, including not only reasoning and memory, but also consciousness…” (Landgrebe and Smith, 2023).
2. Artificial general intelligence is the idea that AI will “exceed all expressions of human-specific intelligence, including not only reasoning and memory, but also consciousness…”¹

¹ Landgrebe, J. and Simth, B. (2023). Why Machines Will Never Rule the World. Routledge (arguing that artificial general intelligence is not mathematically possible; those suggesting AGI is imminent or possible grossly exaggerate the potential for AI artefacts to behave autonomously in a human-like way; and, engineers cannot create “a software emulation of the human neurocognitive system”.)

If the source is arguing that the concept is bunk, the footnote gives an author the chance to say so. The in-line parenthetical citation does not.

Plagiarism

Accusations range from close synopses without citations, altering a few words without crediting the idea to the originator, and even coopting exact quotations without citation or quotation marks. Plagiarism is an unethical form of stealing the work of another person.

The placement of the in-text citation is especially important so that readers know which ideas are the author’s and which came from the cited source. However, in-text citations often are placed at the end of multiple sentences or sentences with multiple clauses. When authors properly use footnotes, they may use ibid or a short form like author’s last name, date. With in-text citations, authors tend to hesitate to over cite. It looks odd to repeat the in-text citation throughout a paragraph, while it is quite normal to have a footnote superscript after or in nearly every sentence. Therefore, when a paragraph summarizes a source and the in-text citation is withheld until the end, the author can be vulnerable to plagiarism inquiries.

Example

1. The pharmaceutical industry is heavily involved in creating articles for medical journals. Often, industry-sponsored research results in findings that favor drugs from which the industry profits. Pharmaceutical companies pay for research with the intent to promote their own new therapy over the status quo (Washington, 2011).
2.  The pharmaceutical industry is heavily involved in creating articles for medical journals.¹ Often, industry-sponsored research results in findings that favor drugs from which the industry profits.² Pharmaceutical companies pay for research with the intent to promote their own new therapy over the status quo.³

¹ Washington, H. (2011). Flacking for Big Pharma. The American Scholar (arguing that academic publications are heavily influenced by pharmaceutical corporations which stand to gain financially from the published research.)

² Washington, 2011, p. xxx.

³Washington, 2011, p. xxx.

C. The pharmaceutical industry is heavily involved in creating articles for medical journals (Washington, 2011). Often, industry-sponsored research results in findings that favor drugs from which the industry profits (Washington, 2011). Pharmaceutical companies pay for research with the intent to promote their own new therapy over the status quo (Washington, 2011).

Choice A can result in a plagiarism accusation. Choice B (which would normally be single-spaced and at the bottom of the page) gives proper attribution. The parenthetical may be overkill as the paragraph covers the topic. Most authors do not opt for choice C, which would attribute each claim properly using multiple in-text citations.

Plagiarism in the news

Plagiarism is not always a word-for-word heist. It is often taking an original idea without attribution or rephrasing the writing of another. The heightened attention to plagiarism has a political context. Plagiarism seems to be the new sex scandal — it has become a way to target high profile university heads, politicians, and activists. As high-profile accusations go, plagiarism claims hit hard. Accusers can make errors look like major integrity lapses. Claudine Gay of Harvard lost her position over it, but then her accuser’s wife, Neri Oxman, faced similar allegations (Lawrence, 2024). Please pardon my in-text parenthetical citation.

Conclusion

Failing to explain context can set readers up to infer that a source’s meaning was actually quite the opposite of its actual meaning. Implications matter greatly and authors should have the opportunity to clarify – in the footnotes!

Lawrence, A. (2024). Harvard’s Claudine Gay was ousted for ‘plagiarism’. How serious was it really?The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/jan/06/harvard-claudine-gay-plagiarism