The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2025-26)

recent posts

about

Norms for citing the SEP?

In our new “how can we help you?” thread, a reader writes:

What are the norms now on citing SEP entries? I was once told never to cite it, but I’ve now seen a few published articles which do. If a particularly useful SEP entry is one citation among many, would anyone bat an eye?

One person noted in a follow-up comment that they cite the SEP regularly and it has never been a problem for them. I suspect it may only be a problem if SEP entries make up most or all of one’s references, in which case it may look like one hasn’t really researched the area.

What do other readers think?

Posted in

9 responses to “Norms for citing the SEP?”

  1. Anonymous

    Look at the Google Scholar pages for some of the authors of the SEP articles … their SEP articles are often their most cited publication. So someone must b citing them

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    It’s definitely fine and I don’t understand the advice you got. SEP articles are excellent resources usually written by some of the foremost experts in their subfields. I could understand if the advice is to be *careful* citing SEP, because they’re in large part lit review, so if it’s an important part of the paper you should avoid over-relying primarily on the lit review part of the SEP article and instead read the things they’re citing. That said, there are clear times when it’s worth engaging directly with an SEP article (because sometimes you’ll find an interesting original argument that the author hasn’t published elsewhere), or when it is the best thing to cite for a general claim about the state of the literature — I often write things like “a standard/received view is X”, where the SEP is a great thing to cite (along with the famous things that made X standard) because it supports the sociological claim that X really is standard/received.

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    I have cited the SEP in a paper that got published in a ‘top’ journal, and think it was fine to do so. In my case, I cited it in a “for more on X, see this SEP article” footnote. I agree with Marcus that SEP entries should not make up a large portion of a paper’s citations, but it seems fine to cite them as something to see for an overview on some topic–especially if that topic is mentioned in the paper, but is not the main subject of the paper.

    Reply
  4. Michel

    IMO, there’s nothing wrong with it. It’s a fine resource.

    And sure, I’ve occasionally cited it too.

    Reply
  5. Anonymous

    I don’t understand the norm of never citing SEP articles. Should I also never cite a phil compass article or a textbook? I normally cite SEP articles for overviews of material, or quotes about how to formulate an idea or position. I rarely respond to arguments that explicitly appear in SEP articles.

    Reply
  6. Trevor Hedberg

    I have cited the SEP in some papers. It was never an issue for any editors or peer reviewers. Sometimes, it’s appropriate to cite literature reviews and other reference works. I cannot imagine why someone would have advised never to cite it.

    Reply
  7. Anonymous

    I think SEP is just fine to cite for things like more info on a slightly tangential claim/topic, the claim that X is a common or default position on a certain issue, or perhaps to report the view of a (non-central to your paper) historical figure who is technical/poorly studied/not in a language you read etc. I wouldn’t cite it in lieu of primary sources for a main argument I’m engaging with, but who would do that anyway? I’ve not often cited the SEP in publications but haven’t got any complaints or comments when I did so. In contrast I was once told that I should cite an SEP page because it was written by someone who they thought I ought to have cited.

    Reply
  8. Michel

    Presumably, the advice stemmed from the early days, when SEP and IEP were new and, yes, Wikipedia too. I imagine the attitude to Wikipedia was generalized to the SEP.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      OP here. Thanks, this makes sense as an explanation. Glad to know from the rest of the rest of the thread that I am now free from this generalization I received long ago.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to AnonymousCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading