I find this approach strangely condescending. For example the author says:
> Understanding the value attributed to X, Y, and Z in that particular text requires assessment of the rhetorical strategies of the author(s).
They could've just said, if you want to know why the author thinks XYZ are important, you need to look at what they are saying about it.
I'm a hardcore postmodern leftist, but I don't see how writing in such a contorted way helps practicing scientists. In fact I would argue that this kind of listing obscures a politics of its own; it is so busy prescribing citation practices that it won't examine its own politics.
That said, it's the first time I've seen this guide so maybe I need to read up on the issues; a list of do's / don'ts isn't the best way to introduce and help people understand the issues.
> Understanding the value attributed to X, Y, and Z in that particular text requires assessment of the rhetorical strategies of the author(s).
They could've just said, if you want to know why the author thinks XYZ are important, you need to look at what they are saying about it.
I'm a hardcore postmodern leftist, but I don't see how writing in such a contorted way helps practicing scientists. In fact I would argue that this kind of listing obscures a politics of its own; it is so busy prescribing citation practices that it won't examine its own politics.
That said, it's the first time I've seen this guide so maybe I need to read up on the issues; a list of do's / don'ts isn't the best way to introduce and help people understand the issues.