Top Law Schools

In the introduction section of an academic legal article, should I use footnotes and if so, do I cite to the text/citation later in the article that elaborates on this point (using the appropriate rules/format/style) or to the actual source itself. I know this is a fairly dumb question in that pretty much all of the articles i've seen have citations in the intro section but I just want to be certain of the best practices. For instance, a few articles i'm looking at right now don't cite in the first paragraph of the introduction section despite being full of statements that should have authority.

Introduction section? Do you mean abstract? If so, there won't be any cites there. You'll save that for the body of the research paper.

Bobnoxious wrote:Introduction section? Do you mean abstract? If so, there won't be any cites there. You'll save that for the body of the research paper.

Introduction, not abstract.

Note: I also have an abstract but that's on a separate page above.

I'd say yes, but I just looked at one and it looks like there were some places that really needed a notation but didn't have one, while in other areas of the "introduction" area there were footnotes provided. The introduction area was not separately titled, though, so that could make all the difference in the world.

Beats me.

Good luck

I footnoted my Introduction section, even for claims that were made later in the paper. Also, it seems to be standard practice with all the professors I have worked with.

Also, I think different law reviews have different protocols for this, so you could be good either way.

I think the general protocol on our LR was to do internal cites in the introduction - all those awful "see infra Section II.B" kinds of cites. Because presumably your introduction is giving a kind of brief rundown of your argument, and so if your notes go into detail when you address that issue thoroughly later in the piece, there's no need to duplicate those notes in the intro. But my memory's a little hazy about this...

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I think the general protocol on our LR was to do internal cites in the introduction - all those awful "see infra Section II.B" kinds of cites. Because presumably your introduction is giving a kind of brief rundown of your argument, and so if your notes go into detail when you address that issue thoroughly later in the piece, there's no need to duplicate those notes in the intro. But my memory's a little hazy about this...

That's what I was thinking and it makes sense. Guess i'll do it this way and find out tomorrow whether i'm an idiot.