Sources and Citation Policy

Hominid Post publishes educational content about human evolution, anthropology, archaeology, human behavior, cultural evolution, and related fields.

Our credibility depends on whether readers can trace important claims back to reliable evidence. Sources should allow readers to examine the research, understand its limits, and distinguish established findings from interpretation and speculation.

This policy explains how Hominid Post selects, evaluates, cites, and corrects sources.

Our sourcing principles

Hominid Post follows five basic rules:

1.Important factual and scientific claims should be supported by identifiable sources.
2.Sources should be represented accurately and in context.
3.Strong claims require strong evidence.
4.Primary research is preferred when the article discusses a specific scientific finding.
5.Citations should help readers verify a claim rather than create the appearance of authority.

A long reference list does not make an argument reliable. The quality, relevance, and accurate use of sources matter more than the number of citations.

Preferred source hierarchy

The appropriate source depends on the question, but Hominid Post generally gives priority to the following materials.

Peer-reviewed primary research

Primary research reports original data, observations, experiments, fieldwork, archaeological findings, statistical analyses, or formal models.

Examples include:

·Journal articles reporting original research
·Archaeological site reports
·Ethnographic studies
·Comparative primate studies
·Genetic and genomic research
·Longitudinal and cross-cultural studies
·Experimental research
·Mathematical and evolutionary models

When an article discusses the findings of a particular study, we should cite the original study whenever it is reasonably available.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide a stronger overview than individual studies because they evaluate a larger body of evidence.

They are especially valuable when:

·Findings vary across studies
·Effect sizes are small
·Replication is uneven
·Samples come from different populations
·A field has accumulated enough research for comparison

A meta-analysis is only as reliable as the studies and inclusion criteria on which it is based. We do not treat it as automatically conclusive.

Scholarly books and edited volumes

Books published by reputable academic presses can provide valuable theoretical, historical, archaeological, and ethnographic context.

They are particularly useful for:

·Broad scientific synthesis
·Historical development of a theory
·Regional archaeological context
·Long-term ethnographic interpretation
·Clarification of disciplinary debates

When possible, claims about a specific study should still be traced to the original publication rather than relying only on a later book summary.

Government, university, museum, and scientific institutions

Official institutional sources may be appropriate for:

·Population statistics
·Public health data
·Archaeological site information
·Museum collections
·Legal and regulatory records
·Census data
·Scientific definitions
·Historical archives
·Research ethics guidance

Institutional authority does not eliminate the need for scrutiny. Data collection methods, publication dates, definitions, and possible political constraints should still be considered.

Reputable journalism

High-quality journalism may be used for:

·Recent scientific developments
·Interviews
·Institutional disputes
·Research misconduct investigations
·Policy changes
·Events that have not yet entered the academic literature

Journalism should not replace the original research when the original study is available.

News articles, press releases, and headlines may simplify or exaggerate scientific findings. Hominid Post should verify important scientific claims against the underlying study.

Expert interviews

Interviews with qualified researchers may add context, clarify disagreements, or explain methodological limitations.

Expert opinion should be identified as opinion or interpretation. It should not be presented as equivalent to published evidence.

Relevant credentials, affiliations, and conflicts of interest should be disclosed when they affect how the reader may evaluate the statement.

Sources requiring additional caution

Some sources may be useful but require careful qualification.

Preprints

Preprints are research papers made public before formal peer review.

They may provide timely information, but their findings remain provisional. When citing a preprint, Hominid Post should:

·Clearly identify it as a preprint
·Avoid describing the findings as settled
·Check whether a peer-reviewed version has since been published
·Note major methodological limitations
·Avoid building a broad conclusion on one unreviewed paper

Conference presentations and abstracts

Conference materials may describe work that is incomplete, unpublished, or later revised.

They should be used cautiously and identified as preliminary.

An abstract alone usually provides too little information to evaluate methods, limitations, and statistical analysis.

Dissertations and theses

Dissertations and theses may contain valuable original research, especially in anthropology and archaeology.

They should be evaluated for:

·Institutional credibility
·Methodological transparency
·Availability of full text
·Whether related findings were later peer-reviewed
·Whether the claims extend beyond the evidence

Working papers and institutional reports

Working papers and reports may be useful when they provide transparent methods and data.

They should not be treated as peer-reviewed unless they have undergone an identifiable scholarly review process.

Encyclopedias

Reputable encyclopedias are useful for basic definitions, broad chronology, and introductory context.

They are generally not sufficient for disputed or technically complex scientific claims.

Websites and blogs

Websites may be cited when they are the original source for:

·An organization's own policy
·An official statement
·An author's published position
·A public database
·A project description
·A current institutional record

Unreviewed blogs should not be used as primary scientific evidence unless the article is examining the blog or its claims directly.

Social media

Social media posts may be cited as evidence of what a person or organization publicly stated.

They should not be treated as scientific evidence merely because the author has academic credentials.

Posts may be deleted, edited, impersonated, or stripped of context. Important statements should be archived or confirmed through another source when possible.

Artificial intelligence output

Artificial intelligence systems are not acceptable sources.

They may assist with organization, language, or research discovery, but their output cannot be cited as evidence. Any study, quotation, statistic, historical claim, or reference generated through an automated system must be independently verified against the original source.

Sources we do not accept as scientific evidence

Hominid Post does not rely on the following as support for scientific claims:

·Invented or unverifiable references
·Anonymous claims without corroboration
·Fabricated quotations
·Search-result summaries without reading the source
·Promotional material presented as independent research
·Testimonials used as proof of general effectiveness
·Screenshots with no traceable origin
·AI-generated citations
·Predatory journals with inadequate editorial review
·Content farms
·Plagiarized material
·Publications known to have been retracted, unless the retraction itself is being discussed

A source should never be included simply because its title appears to support the article's argument.

Reading the underlying research

Authors and editors should review enough of a source to understand what it actually supports.

For empirical research, this normally includes:

·Research question
·Study population
·Sample size
·Data collection methods
·Measures used
·Statistical methods
·Main findings
·Limitations
·Funding and conflicts of interest
·Whether the conclusions match the results

The abstract may help identify a relevant paper, but it is not always sufficient for responsible citation.

When full access is unavailable, the article should avoid making detailed claims that cannot be verified from accessible material.

Citation style

Hominid Post generally uses author-date citations in the text.

Examples:

·Human cooperation varies with ecology, kinship, institutions, and expected reciprocity (Cronk & Leech, 2013).
·Patton (2005) found that meat transfers in Conambo were associated with political alliances as well as kinship and reciprocity.

Each article should include a References and Further Reading section containing full publication details.

References should normally follow American Psychological Association (APA) style, with reasonable adjustments for archaeology, historical sources, websites, and archival materials.

What should be cited

A citation should be included when a statement depends on information that readers cannot reasonably be expected to know without verification.

This includes:

·Scientific findings
·Statistical claims
·Historical dates under discussion
·Archaeological dating
·Descriptions of study populations
·Claims about the views of a named scholar
·Quotations
·Definitions that are disputed or field-specific
·Specific descriptions of a theory
·Legal or policy claims
·Claims about institutional actions
·Claims about current scientific consensus
·Claims that a finding has replicated or failed to replicate

Common knowledge does not always require citation.

The threshold for citation should rise with the specificity, controversy, and consequence of the claim.

Citation placement

Citations should appear close to the claim they support.

A citation placed at the end of a long paragraph should not be expected to support several unrelated statements.

Where multiple sources support different parts of a sentence or paragraph, the citations should be placed so the relationship is clear.

We avoid citation clusters that obscure which source supports which claim.

Source-to-claim alignment

Every citation should support the wording used in the article.

A source showing an association should not be cited for a claim of causation.

A study conducted in one country should not automatically support a universal claim about humans.

A study of university students should not be described as representative of all adults.

Animal research should not be used as direct evidence of human behavior without qualification.

A neuroimaging study showing activity in a brain region should not be described as proving that the region causes a complex emotional or social behavior.

An article should not use a source for a stronger conclusion than the authors of the source reasonably made.

Quotation policy

Direct quotations must reproduce the source accurately.

Quotations should:

·Preserve the original meaning
·Be attributed to the correct person
·Include page numbers when available and useful
·Make omissions clear
·Use brackets for necessary clarification
·Avoid removing language that materially changes the meaning

We do not construct quotations by combining separate passages without making that clear.

A memorable quotation should not replace a fair account of the author's broader argument.

Paraphrasing

Paraphrasing means expressing an idea in original language while preserving the source's meaning.

Changing a few words or rearranging a sentence is not sufficient.

Paraphrased ideas still require citation.

Writers should avoid reproducing the distinctive structure, sequence, or language of a source without acknowledgment.

Secondary citation

A secondary citation occurs when one author is quoted or described through another source.

Whenever possible, Hominid Post should consult and cite the original work.

When the original source cannot be accessed, the article should make the secondary relationship clear rather than implying direct verification.

For example:

Darwin's observation is quoted in Fisher et al. (2006).

This is more accurate than presenting the quotation as if it had been checked in the original edition.

Multiple studies and scientific consensus

Claims about scientific consensus require evidence broader than one paper.

An article describing a position as widely accepted should rely on sources such as:

·Recent reviews
·Meta-analyses
·Major scientific assessments
·Textbooks or handbooks reflecting current scholarship
·Statements from relevant scientific organizations
·Several independent lines of evidence

The absence of total agreement does not mean that all positions have equal evidentiary support.

At the same time, minority views should not be erased when they remain scientifically credible and relevant to the question.

Competing theories

When a subject contains a substantial scientific dispute, Hominid Post should identify the leading positions and explain what evidence would distinguish among them.

The article should consider:

·Whether the theories make different predictions
·Whether they use different definitions
·Whether the disagreement is empirical, mathematical, or philosophical
·Whether the debate concerns mechanism, terminology, or level of analysis
·Whether one explanation may operate alongside another

Citation should not become a vote-counting exercise. The question is how well each source supports its claims.

Retracted and corrected research

Before relying heavily on a study, authors and editors should check whether it has been:

·Retracted
·Corrected
·Subject to an expression of concern
·Superseded by a later version
·Challenged by a failed replication
·Materially criticized for methodological reasons

Retracted studies should not be cited as valid evidence.

They may be cited when the article discusses:

·The history of a controversy
·Research misconduct
·The reason for retraction
·The continued influence of a discredited claim

In such cases, the retraction status must be stated clearly.

Older sources

The age of a source does not determine its quality.

Classic studies may remain important for theory, history, or original observation. However, an older paper should not be treated as the current state of evidence without checking later research.

Articles should distinguish among:

·Historically influential claims
·Findings that remain supported
·Findings that were revised
·Findings that failed to replicate
·Theories that remain debated

Cross-cultural evidence

Claims about human nature should not rely only on research from a narrow population when broader evidence is available.

Hominid Post gives particular weight to:

·Cross-cultural research
·Comparative ethnography
·Archaeological evidence
·Studies from small-scale societies
·Research outside Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic populations
·Comparative primate evidence
·Historical variation

No living population should be treated as a fossil, an unchanged ancestral group, or a direct model of prehistoric humanity.

Ethnographic evidence should be presented within its ecological, political, economic, and historical context.

Archaeological sources

Archaeological claims require particular care because evidence is often incomplete and interpretation may change with new dating or excavation.

Articles should distinguish among:

·Excavated evidence
·Laboratory dating
·Reconstruction
·Scholarly interpretation
·Public speculation

When relevant, citations should identify:

·The archaeological site
·The material studied
·The dating method
·The estimated date range
·The uncertainty
·Whether the interpretation is widely accepted or disputed

Artist reconstructions and museum descriptions are not substitutes for excavation reports when the scientific claim depends on archaeological evidence.

Genetic and ancestry sources

Genetic findings should be reported with attention to:

·Sample size
·Geographic coverage
·Ancient versus modern DNA
·Reference populations
·Statistical uncertainty
·Population continuity and mixture
·Limits of ancestry categories

Genetic ancestry should not be confused with culture, nationality, race, language, religion, or political identity.

A genetic similarity does not establish cultural ownership, moral entitlement, or historical purity.

Sources on sex and gender

Research on sex differences should be cited and described carefully.

Articles should address:

·The degree of overlap between groups
·Effect size
·Measurement methods
·Cultural context
·Developmental influences
·Variation within each group
·Whether the study concerns biological sex, gender identity, gender roles, or social classification

Average differences should not be used to make unsupported claims about individuals.

Health and psychological sources

Articles discussing health, mental health, neuroscience, or medical conditions should rely on appropriate clinical and scientific evidence.

Such content should distinguish between:

·Population-level findings
·Clinical diagnosis
·Risk factors
·Correlation
·Treatment evidence
·Personal experience

Educational content should not be presented as individualized medical or psychological advice.

Commercial and sponsored sources

Commercial funding does not automatically invalidate research, but material relationships should be disclosed.

When evaluating industry-funded research, articles should consider:

·Who funded the work
·Whether the sponsor influenced study design
·Who controlled the data
·Whether negative results were reported
·Whether authors had financial relationships
·Whether findings were independently replicated

Press releases, product pages, white papers, and sponsored surveys should be identified as commercial sources.

They should not be presented as independent scientific evidence without qualification.

Links to sources

Where practical, references should link to:

·The journal article
·Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
·Publisher page
·PubMed record
·Institutional repository
·Official report
·Stable archive
·Public dataset

Links should lead readers as close as possible to the original source.

Affiliate links, promotional pages, and tracking links should not replace direct scientific-source links.

Paywalled sources may still be cited, but accessible versions should be provided when legally available.

Reference completeness

A reference should contain enough information for a reader to locate the source.

For journal articles, this usually includes:

·Author or authors
·Year
·Article title
·Journal title
·Volume and issue, when available
·Page range or article number
·Digital Object Identifier (DOI), when available

For books:

·Author or editor
·Year
·Title
·Publisher

For chapters:

·Chapter author
·Year
·Chapter title
·Editors
·Book title
·Page range
·Publisher

For websites and reports:

·Author or institution
·Publication or update date
·Page or report title
·Publisher or organization
·Link
·Access date when the content is likely to change

Reference accuracy

Authors and editors are responsible for checking that:

·The author names are correct
·The publication year is correct
·The title is accurate
·The journal or publisher is correct
·The citation points to the intended source
·The source supports the article's claim
·The source has not been retracted
·The link works when the article is published

Reference-management software may reduce formatting errors, but it does not verify whether a citation is real or relevant.

Citation diversity

Source selection should reflect the relevant scholarship rather than only the most famous authors or the sources easiest to access.

Where appropriate, Hominid Post should seek:

·Researchers from the region being discussed
·Scholars with direct field experience
·Women and historically underrepresented researchers
·Competing theoretical traditions
·Recent research alongside foundational work
·Local archaeological and historical scholarship

Citation diversity does not mean lowering evidentiary standards or selecting sources to satisfy a quota. It means avoiding a narrow source network that overlooks relevant work.

Citation manipulation

Hominid Post does not permit:

·Adding irrelevant citations to inflate a bibliography
·Citing friends or colleagues without relevance
·Requiring authors to cite a publication for commercial or professional benefit
·Excluding relevant sources because they challenge the article
·Citing a source without reading or verifying it
·Using several citations to create false certainty
·Copying reference lists from another article without checking the sources

Source transparency

Articles should be transparent about the limits of their evidence.

When appropriate, the article should tell readers:

·When evidence is preliminary
·When only an abstract was available
·When a claim relies on one study
·When data come from a narrow sample
·When the literature is divided
·When a source is old but historically important
·When a translation was used
·When evidence comes from animals
·When a commercial source is involved
·When no strong primary source could be found

Uncertainty should be stated in the article rather than hidden in the reference list.

Errors in citations

Citation errors are handled under the Hominid Post Corrections and Updates Policy.

A correction may be required when:

·A reference is fabricated
·A link points to the wrong source
·A source does not support the associated claim
·A quotation is inaccurate
·An author is misattributed
·A retracted article is presented as valid evidence
·A secondary source is presented as an original source
·A citation omission materially affects the article's credibility

Minor formatting errors may be corrected without a formal notice when they do not affect meaning or traceability.

Reader access and further reading

References should serve both verification and education.

Where appropriate, articles may separate:

·References: Sources directly supporting the article
·Further reading: High-quality materials that provide broader context but are not necessary support for a specific claim

This distinction helps readers understand which works were used as evidence and which are offered for continued learning.

Our commitment

Hominid Post does not use citations as decoration.

We use them to show where a claim came from, how strong the evidence is, what remains disputed, and how readers can examine the issue themselves.

We commit to:

·Citing important claims
·Preferring original and high-quality sources
·Representing sources accurately
·Distinguishing peer-reviewed research from preliminary work
·Checking retraction and correction status
·Separating evidence from interpretation
·Disclosing commercial and institutional interests
·Correcting source and citation errors
·Making uncertainty visible
·Giving readers a clear path back to the evidence

Scientific accountability begins with traceable claims.

← Editorial Standards Corrections Policy →