Citing unseen references

Normally is it seen as a sign of bad quality if papers cite other papers, which have not been read properly by the author citing them. Fields in which this is taking place is regarded badly managed and not reflecting high standards of scholarship or scientific culture.

Some research have been done in this field based on, for example, repetition of spelling errors in bibliographic references. Another way to study this phenomenon is to consider distortions of the meaning of cited papers.

Unseen citedness may be more acceptable when the aim of the citing paper is to provide a bibliography or a review. However, even here is autopsy regarded a quality norm.

References:

Anonymous. (2003). Cite unseen. New Scientist, 177(2377), p. 22.(Letter). 
 

Harris, B. (1979). Whatever happened to Little Albert? American Psychologist, 34(2), 151-160.

McDermott, P. (2003).  Cite unseen. New Scientist, 177(2377), p. 22.
(Letter). 

Redington, M. (2003). Cite unseen. New Scientist, 177(2377), p. 22.
(Letter). 

Treadway, M. & McCloskey, M. (1987). Cite unseen: Distortions of the Allport and Postmann rumor study in the eyewittness literature. Law and Human Behavior, 11(1), 19-25.