I was once asked by a reviewer to cite a more updated source for information that I presented. I replied that since my original citation was the primary source, then it was more appropriate to cite this reference. It seemed strange to me that the reviewer was more intent on having more recent references, making it seem as if citing older references was wrong - "luma na 'yan, wala ka bang mas bago ?" In retrospect, I realized that I was almost led into committing an ethically questionable citation practice by a peer reviewer.
Thank you very much, Dr. Yang, for sharing your experience. I agree that there is often a strong push to prioritize more recent articles without adequately considering their methodological rigor and overall quality. For instance, a journal of a professional society in our country rejected a paper solely based on the age of its references. This is particularly concerning as the paper offered a re-examination of an assessment procedure that has fallen out of favor due to complaints from interns and residents about the additional workload it entails.
As I have mentioned previously, it is crucial for advisers and reviewers to critically assess their own capabilities before undertaking these roles. If they find themselves unable to perform their duties effectively, they should consider stepping aside.
As I have mentioned previously, it is crucial for advisers and reviewers to critically assess their own capabilities before undertaking these roles. If they find themselves unable to perform their duties effectively, they should consider stepping aside.