Does anyone know the norms around using a modified illustration in a report? To what lengths does one need to go to explain where it's from, and why it's modified? For example, in my case, if I were feeling meticulous the citation would read 'graph by x, borrowed from a report by y, using figures from z, then modified my me using figures from z, but found in incomplete form in a report by aa, which explains the difference in presentation'. Is all that really necessary?
<== It's not that one, by the way. I'm still working on it.
>>5270 My first instinct as a pleb would be to just tag it with multiple references and cite the lot, since it would in effect be an original synthesis derived from those sources. But then I'm a pleb, not an academic.
I've done that in most cases; in this one however
a) I can't find the raw data on z's website
b) I can illustrate my point without, so it's not worth ploughing that much time into scouring the web / library for them.