- May 13, 2018 at 12:14 am
I read somewhere that models should be referenced to the original authors.eg SFA model would be referenced to Johnson and Scholes.is this correct?if I got the info from a website can u please tell me how to do the referencing?May 13, 2018 at 7:50 pm
Everything needs to be referenced to a reliable source and sufficient details supplied so the comment can be traced to the document where it can be read in the appropriate context. This may or may not necessarily be the original source depending on the circumstances. With websites as you may need to give an appropriate name e.g. Open tuition.com however there MUST also be a link to the correct page that supports the commentary. General website references e.g Reuters.com and no link are as useless as a chocolate teapot!May 14, 2018 at 11:14 pm
Quick one, do we have to include a bibliography at all for submission?May 14, 2018 at 11:25 pm
Quick couple of referencing questions!
First, after following the guidance in the Information Pack I was under the impression you only needed a page number if you are quoting directly, not if you’re paraphrasing a statement or point. So that’s where I’m at with my referencing. This is contrary to the Golden Rules! Do I have to go back and dig out page numbers? ?
Secondly I have used a couple of direct quotes. For instance, the CEO saying that they had effective yield management. I’m of the opinion that that was positive spin on poor occupancy rates and set out why I thought so, so wanted his statement verbatim. Should I still paraphrase?
And finally, I’ve used Microsoft Word’s referencing tool which is pretty good. It uses the correct designators, generates an alphabetical list etc, but it lists web sources slightly different to that in the Information Pack.
For example it would list:
Author, Year, Article Title [Online], URL and date accessed.
It’s not listing the publication (The Telegraph, say). I could go in and manually add the text but was wondering if there was something I was doing wrong that could do it automatically. I am, for example, putting ‘The Telegraph’ in the Website Name field.
O.May 15, 2018 at 11:28 am
1. Remember 100% perfection is not demanded for the RAP and that Appendix 3 of the Info Pack has been extracted from the Guidance given to ALL OBU students (including those doing Masters courses where Harvard is MANDATORY). So normally for the RAP page numbers are a nicety but not a necessity. I have pointed out in posts where they should be used (normally for different pages used in long written parts of documents)
2. Direct citations are fine if you are using them for emphasis where the exact quote adds to the arguments / discussion
3. Probably would need to do this for a higher degree. As long as the reader can find the source document (there is more than a generic website link) this should be fine PROVIDED the list and text references match -no good have say Telegraph 2016 in the report if there is nothing listed as Telegraph (2016) ! If you have time you could of course put the full name in but the submission window closes shortly so unless there is the matching problem (which MUST be dealt with) just leave it.May 15, 2018 at 12:45 pm
Thanks or your quick response @trephena
I’ll try and put page numbers in if I have time, after all, I want to make the marker’s life easy!
Great news on direct quotes, I do believe the ones I’ve used add value. It’s not a case of me not understanding a point; I believe he chose his word carefully, and never benchmarks occupancy, only RevPAR. The scamp.
Re: question 3, the in-text citation appears as, say, (Peston, R., 2014), and in the reference list it appears as:
Peston, R., 2014. UK economy back at pre-crisis level. [Online]
Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28479902
[Accessed 24 March 2018].
So I’ve no fears that the marker won’t find the quote, it’s just a shame that ‘BBC News’ hasn’t been included automatically.
One final question: is it possible to upload what is ready and save progress, rather than submit the same time? I’m conscious of the servers becoming too busy to accept files, so to upload what I have at the moment might be a smooth move.
Thanks, O.May 15, 2018 at 1:13 pm
Ooh, one more @trephena
I’ve referenced different webpages from within the same website for ratio definitions. I’m just going through them to append a, b, c etc., but there is no date on these pages.
So, would the correct citations be:
(Website Name, n.d.a)
(Website Name, n.d.b) etc.
With the references:
Website Name, n.d.a, Page Name, URL, Accessed Date etc.August 2, 2018 at 9:57 am
Please when referencing tables do I have to put the three Annual statements for each of the companies? i.e: ABC,2015; ABC 2016… and XPY,2015; XPY 2016.August 2, 2018 at 10:33 am
For tables and graphs you may write “Source: Annual reports 2015, 2016, 2017 ABC and XYZ”August 2, 2018 at 10:43 am
Alright great, thank you ma’am.August 2, 2018 at 10:55 am
Another question please I have chose Rio Tinto as my company for the research as if operates in the mining industry. Now since the company is the second largest miner in the world based on market value according to this source https://www.marketwatch.com/story/rio-tinto-profit-jumps-plans-further-1b-buyback-2018-08-01.
I want to list that as one of the strengths of Rio Tinto in my SWOT analysis, how do I do the in text referencing?
By market value, Rio Tinto is the largest miner in world based on market value ( Hoyle, 2018)
Is that acceptable?August 2, 2018 at 3:17 pm
If this was the source you have cited above and it was written by Hoyle then yes this is correct. Have you consulted the Open Tuition Ultimate Guide to Referencing your RAP as that sets out most of the important rules about in text references and how to show these in your reference list?August 2, 2018 at 3:25 pm
I have, thanks so very muchAugust 2, 2018 at 9:19 pm
Hello please do I also need to reference the background information about the company I chose?August 19, 2018 at 11:43 am
Please I’m confused on how to reference this site. https://www.reuters.com/article/rio-tinto-copper/focus-rio-tinto-ready-to-splash-out-on-copper-idUSL8N1TS0ZG
Should it be (Reuters.com, 2018)?August 19, 2018 at 3:17 pm
If this is the only reuters reference from 2018 then (Reuters.com, 2018) in the text would be fine however if others from 2018 are used then you would need to distinguish them from each other with (a), (b), (c) etc. In you list you should give it the article title as it helps the reader.August 19, 2018 at 9:01 pm
Hello please what about an online article where another person was quoted in. Do I use the name of the original person that was quoted in the article or the author of the article? For instance
An article written by Mr ABC in 2017 has a statement that was made by Mr XYZ. Do I write (ABC, 2017) or (XYZ, 2017)?August 20, 2018 at 9:49 am
I have an online article, it says “China will introduce foreign investors to trade in domestic iron ore futures from May 4, according to the country’s securities regulator.”
How do I reference this please,is it (author of the article, date) or (Securities regulator, date)
I’m confused on which designator and source material to use.August 20, 2018 at 9:49 am
Can someone help me? ??August 20, 2018 at 1:05 pm
It may be a case of trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted (I await the result of my May 2018 submission), but I’ve only recently happened upon the idea that ‘Investopedia’ is not a source that OBU are keen on.
This is somewhat concerning for me as I referenced them 6 times for definitions of financial ratio formulae (such as gross profit, net debt/EBITDA etc.).
Is anyone aware of why the site is not considered reliable? Besides the -pedia suffix, I can’t see that it shares anything else in common with oft-lamented Wikipedia, which has the fair criticism of being editable by just about anyone with an email address. Investopedia, by contrast, is in the business of educating investors through information and articles authored by editors and analysts – it is not editable by all and sundry, to the best of my knowledge. It therefore provides much detail on financial ratios, indispensable tools for analysing financial statements, and therefore hugely useful for Topic 8.
I would be most disappointed to fail for this, especially as it was not highlighted by my Mentor as an area of concern.
Has anyone had an experience of failing their RAP for the inclusion of Investopedia as a source?August 20, 2018 at 2:19 pm
nikuz – I am not sure if you have posted 2 slightly different queries here or are just giving more information about the one query.
Taking your second query. The securities regulator is unnamed and therefore you would cite the name of the author of the article in the text and list.
Regarding your first query. This is like when reading a citation in a book or academic paper. The usual thing is in the text to put (ABC as cited in XYZ, 2017) and then in the list have XYZ 2017)August 20, 2018 at 5:02 pm
Alright thanks.August 21, 2018 at 1:53 am
Hello Trephena, what if the securities regulator was named?August 21, 2018 at 5:00 pm
The rule for referencing is that you should be referring to the published source of the statement (so the reader can read it for themselves).
Unless the securities regulator has published the document then you cite the author of the article or journal the statement was published in (the reader needs to be able to locate it).
So for example with the Corporate Governance when referring to the Code you would use the FRC (Financial Reporting Council) for this and would only use an author if they were discussing some finer details of this Code in a published articled which they had written. However it would be wrong to use the FRC for such an article as they haven’t written it!August 22, 2018 at 10:56 pm
obuwankenobi – The whole point about references is that in using them you should use the best quality and most reliable sources – so anonymous sources are never ideal and where there is a choice always go for a named author. However when it comes to the formulae and definitions for ratios I think these fall into the category that they are so well known and been repeated so many times, who in fact was the person that first came up with them? Certainly not the writers of the Kaplan texts or even Frank Wood! This being the case I almost wonder whether they should be referenced at all – I cite as my example – would anyone really expect someone to reference the statement “the official residence of the Queen of England, Elizabeth II, is Buckingham Palace”? Of course not! (However I might expect a reference if someone was reporting as a biographical fact about the Queen some detail that is possibly not known at all).
With Wikipedia there is no control over who writes what on it and therefore the ‘facts’ are not therefore considered necessarily credible and reliable – the difference being that a named author or researcher is actually putting their reputation on the line by making statements and hypotheses. Not all anonymous sources are rubbish it is just a case that named sources are always preferable and you are defending Investopedia quite well here provided the content is controlled.
So in many respects I would tell you not to worry unduly about this – certainly as a former marker as I am not convinced that references are needed, I would not have failed for this. However I do not speak for every single marker although there should be as much consistency as possible in the marking. This being the case in the unlikely event that you are failed for this and THIS ALONE (very unlikely as I say for the former) then appeal.
(Certainly as a First Class mentor I shall be supporting all of my mentees through an appeal IF I disagree with their feedback and IF in my opinion based on 14 years of experience of marking to the Assessment Criteria believe that they should have passed…. however of course like I cannot speak for other markers, neither can I speak for other mentors!)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.