I am reading an article that is new, but it's citing completely outdated sources of information. Granted, without knowledge in the field, it would be hard to detect these inaccuracies.

I want to say, "This article is outdated," but that could be misconstrued to mean it's an old article with old information. What is the best, most succinct way to describe the situation without implying that the article itself is old?

  • 5
    I think the common phrasing is "based on outdated information". – Dan Bron Dec 5 '16 at 17:12
  • A 2000-and-late article. ;) – NVZ Dec 5 '16 at 17:15
  • It could be called stale. – Phil Sweet Dec 5 '16 at 22:17
  • +1 for @DanBron. variant: "based on obsolete information". – Graffito Dec 5 '16 at 22:23
  • 1
    The article uses outdated information. – Alan Carmack Dec 6 '16 at 0:00

You can say,

The article is not up-to-date.

This doesn't have the problem we see with the other version ("the article is outdated"). This version only means one thing.

Here is an example of an author using this phrase:

"Cite recent literature. If you are writing in the social sciences and many of your citations are more than three to five years old, the reviewers may state that the article is not up-to-date."

("Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks" by Wendy Laura Belcher, available in google books).

  • This is the best answer to describe the article itself using a single word (up-to-date). I also like Dan Bron's suggestion, "based on outdated information," which is in a comment on the OP. – bvpx Dec 6 '16 at 15:24
  • @bvpx - Glad it's helpful. I sort of cheated, though, because it's actually a two-word phrase -- "not up-to-date." – aparente001 Dec 6 '16 at 15:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.