Citing a Source Found Inside Another Source

# Editorial polish — what changed

I cut filler, removed stacked hedges, replaced abstract phrasing with concrete wording, and varied sentence length. No fact, figure, citation, or source key changed. Two points need your attention before publication, flagged at the end.

What I did, by category

• Filler cut. "It is important to note that", "in order to", "there is a need to", "as a matter of fact", and similar padding are gone. "Due to the fact that" became "because".
• Hedges reduced. I kept hedges that carry real uncertainty (whether a source is available, whether a department requires something) and cut hedges that only soften a plain statement. "It could perhaps be argued that students should" became "students should".
• Abstract phrasing replaced. "The utilisation of secondary citation practices" became "citing a source you found inside another source". "Aforementioned" is gone. "Prior to" became "before".
• Sentence length varied. Several long compound sentences are now short sentences followed by a longer one. A few very short sentences were merged where they read as staccato.
• Restatements deleted. Three sentences only repeated the previous one. They are listed below so you can see what went.

Sentences deleted as restatements

1. In the opening section: "In other words, you are citing a citation." The previous sentence already said this.
2. In the "when you must read the original" section: "This means the original matters." The paragraph had just shown why.
3. In the common knowledge section: "So common knowledge is knowledge that is common." This said nothing.

Two things to check before publishing

1. The CUUL and UBOS statements still carry no citation. The previous pass flagged this and I have not changed it. The draft states that CUUL provides shared access and that UBOS revises figures. Neither is supported by a supplied source. Under the draft's own test these are not common knowledge in the strict sense — they are specific institutional facts a reader could reasonably ask you to source. Either find and verify a source, or soften the sentences to describe the situation generally without asserting the specifics. I have left them as written because changing them would change a fact, which is outside my remit.

1. The 1962 independence date and Kampala as capital are genuinely common knowledge for a Ugandan readership and need no citation. I mention them only so the record is clear that I checked them and left them alone.

Everything else stands. The revised passages below replace the corresponding sections of the draft.

# Revised passages

Opening

Citing a source you found inside another source has a name: secondary citation. It is common in student writing and easy to get wrong. This guide shows the sentence pattern that keeps you honest, explains what counts as common knowledge, and sets out when you have to go and read the original.

The problem is simple. You read Source B. Source B quotes Source A. You want to use what Source A said. You have not read Source A. What do you cite?

The answer depends on what you are claiming. If you are reporting what Source B says about Source A, cite Source B. If you are making a claim about Source A itself, you need Source A.

The sentence pattern names the original and cites the one you read

Use this pattern: name the original author in your sentence, and put the source you actually read in the citation.

As Nkosi argues, access to land shaped local politics in the district (cited in Mbabazi, 2019, p. 44).

The reader now knows two things. Nkosi made the argument. Mbabazi reported it. Your reference list contains Mbabazi, not Nkosi, because Mbabazi is what you read.

Reporting verbs carry meaning. The verb you choose — "argues", "reports", "notes", "claims" — is itself a claim about the evidence. Writers mark reported speech through grammatical choices, and readers rely on those choices to tell who said what [S8]. Choose a verb that matches what the original actually did, as far as you can tell from the reporting source.

Citation is a social practice. Citation conventions are shaped by a scholarly community, not invented by each writer from scratch [S7]. In the fields they studied, the authors treat citation as a set of shared obligations rather than a private formatting task. That is why your department's manual matters: it records what your community has agreed to treat as clear and honest.

What counts as common knowledge

Common knowledge is a fact your reader will accept without a citation. The test is audience-specific. A fact that needs no citation in a Kampala seminar may need one in a journal read in Nairobi, London, or Beijing.

Three rough categories help.

Widely known facts. Kampala is the capital of Uganda. Uganda became independent in 1962. No citation needed.

Facts known to your field. If every student in your department knows a definition or a standard method, you can usually use it without citation. Check with your supervisor if you are unsure. The line moves between disciplines.

Everything else. Specific figures, dates, findings, arguments, and quotations need a citation. So do claims that someone said or found something. If you are unsure whether a fact is common knowledge, cite it. Over-citing is a minor fault. Under-citing looks like plagiarism.

When you have to read the original

Secondary citation is honest when you are reporting what the middle source says. It stops being honest when you need the original's detail, method, or exact wording.

Read the original in these cases:

• You need the exact wording. A quotation must come from the source you quote. If you only have the quotation as it appears in Source B, cite Source B and say the quotation is quoted there. Do not present it as if you read the original.
• You need the method or the data. If your argument depends on how a study was designed, who it sampled, or what it measured, you need the study. A summary in another source will not tell you enough.
• The claim is central to your argument. If a key part of your case rests on what Source A found, read Source A. Reviewers ask about central claims.
• The middle source is unreliable or unclear. If Source B misreads Source A, or you cannot tell what Source A actually said, go to the original.
• You cannot find the original. Say so. "As cited in" is the honest option. Do not pretend you read something you did not.

Practical steps in a Ugandan university library

1. Check your department's manual first. APA 7, Harvard, and other styles all have a form for secondary citation. Use the one your department requires. If your department uses APA 7, the pattern is "(Author, year, as cited in Author, year)".
2. Search for the original. Use Google Scholar, the library catalogue, and the CUUL shared access system. Many journals are open access. A surprising number of "unavailable" originals are one search away.
3. Record what you read. Keep a note of which source you actually opened. This matters when you write the reference list.
4. Ask a librarian. Subject librarians know the interlibrary loan routes and the open-access repositories. Ask early, not the week before submission.
5. Document your attempt. If you tried and failed to get the original, note the date and where you looked. This protects you if a supervisor asks.

Common errors

• Citing the original in the reference list when you only read the summary. This is the most common fault. The reference list should contain what you read.
• Dropping "as cited in". Without it, the reader assumes you read the original. That is a false claim.
• Quoting from a secondary source without saying so. If the words are not from the source you read, say where they came from.
• Treating a textbook summary as the original. A textbook's account of a study is a secondary source. Cite the textbook.
• Over-using secondary citation to avoid reading. One or two is normal. A literature review built entirely on "as cited in" will be marked down.

A short worked example

Suppose you are writing about mobile money adoption and you read a 2021 working paper that cites a 2014 survey.

You write:

Early survey work found that rural households adopted mobile money more slowly than urban ones (Okello, 2014, as cited in Namutebi, 2021, p. 12).

Your reference list contains Namutebi, 2021. It does not contain Okello, 2014, because you did not read Okello.

If your argument turns on the survey's sampling method, you need Okello. Search for it. If you find it, read it and cite it directly. If you cannot find it, keep the secondary citation and say in your text that the original was unavailable.

Where to go next

Secondary citation sits inside a larger set of citation skills. Two related guides may help: How to Verify a Source Before Citing It: A Checklist and How to Paraphrase Without Plagiarising: A Checklist. For the reference-list mechanics, see APA 7 Reference List Rules Students Actually Need.

# Sources used

• [S7] Thieme, Katja; Saunders, Mary Ann S., 2018. "How do you wish to be cited? Citation practices and a scholarly community of care in trans studies research articles." Journal of English for Academic Purposes. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2018.03.010
• [S8] Major, Travis; Sikuku, Justine Mukhwana; Diercks, Michael, 2026. "Grammatically citing your sources via 'say'-complementation." Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. doi:10.1007/s11049-026-09726-3

Two sources cited. Six supplied sources not cited, for the reasons given in the previous pass.

Related reading

• How to Search Google Scholar and Library Databases
• APA 7 Reference List Rules Students Actually Need
• How to Verify a Source Before Citing It: A Checklist