James Drogan

Consider the following introductory paragraph of Kauffmann, Lutz, Alex Michael, and Craig R. Carter. 2009. DEBIASING STRATEGIES IN SUPPLY MANAGEMENT DECISION-MAKING. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS 30, no. 1: 85-106.

'Decision biases are likely to arise in the area of business-to-business sourcing (Bendoly, Donohue, and Schultz 2006) as many supply management decisions are made within contexts of uncertainty (Kaufmann and Carter 2006; Ogden et al. 2005; Zsidisin 2003) and thus challenge supply managers’ rational decision-making. As decision makers’ rationality is bounded due to limitations in information gathering, computing capabilities, and a limited memory (Arrow 1986; Koh, Ang, and Straub 2004; Miller 1956; Nordstrom, Williams, and LeBreton 1996; Slovic and Lichtenstein 1971), they may fail when it comes to judging probabilities, making predictions, or otherwise attempting to cope with uncertain decision-making environments (Arrow 1986; Thaler 1985). This view challenges the traditional rationality assumptions in economics (Hogarth 1987; Tversky and Kahneman 1974). Specifically, it suggests that decisions are vulnerable to decision biases and might only meet the decision quality criterion of “satisficing” (Simon 1957, p. 204) or “reasonable” (Bazerman 1998, p. 5), rather than “rational”.'

I have underlined within these lines 15 citations.  They appear to me to be an an acceptable citation style.  They testify to the thoroughness of the research by the author.  However, they are unfortunate speed bumps to reading and comprehending the paragraph.

My sense is that one would rather get high marks for readability and quality of the argument than high marks for count of citations.  My sense is that we academicians put too much stress on the purity of citations when, after graduation and entering the work force, many students will never use a citation again.

The subject of the paper is one that intrigues me, but I am having trouble getting over the speed bumps.

We need to write to be read.