“source X claims/proves statement Y”—the author should have read source X carefully
“For general background information on subject A, see e.g. source B”—the author tries to make the paper more accessible to people from other fields by providing some context, but they do not need to have read source B in detail. Not reading all of your sources is not necessarily evil
Also, and especially in the physical sciences—“Other techniques for achieving similar goals include...” or “A complementary measurement of the same quantity...” In these cases knowing what they’re doing/trying to do is sufficient.
Of course, the more relevant it is, the more important it is to actually read it. By the time you get to things that you claim actually support your argument, you had better have read them several times carefully.
“source X claims/proves statement Y”—the author should have read source X carefully
“For general background information on subject A, see e.g. source B”—the author tries to make the paper more accessible to people from other fields by providing some context, but they do not need to have read source B in detail. Not reading all of your sources is not necessarily evil
This is quite true, and I didn’t mean to imply that it was evil.
Also, and especially in the physical sciences—“Other techniques for achieving similar goals include...” or “A complementary measurement of the same quantity...” In these cases knowing what they’re doing/trying to do is sufficient.
Of course, the more relevant it is, the more important it is to actually read it. By the time you get to things that you claim actually support your argument, you had better have read them several times carefully.