For law journals at least:
IT IS A COMMON PRACTICE among law review editors to demand that authors support every claim with a citation. These de- mands can cause major headaches for legal scholars. Some claims are so obvious or obscure that they have not been made before. Other claims are made up or false, making them more diffi- cult to support using references to the existing literature.
Legal scholars need a source they can cite when confronted with these challenges. It should be something with an impressive but ge- neric title. I offer this page, with the following conclusion: If you have been directed to this page by a citation elsewhere, it is plainly true that the author’s claim is correct. For further support, consult the extensive scholarship on the point.1
The footnote, of course points to the article itself.
Mortarboard motion: Justin Wolfers
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 5, 2012 at 11:19 am
Enrique
As I wrote when I first saw Wolfer’s original tweet on this: “the article is also very “Godelian” — the mathematician & philosopher Kurt Godel would have loved it!!!”
December 14, 2012 at 10:10 am
jeff
Click to access suspense-seminar-7-22.pdf