Citing Definitions of Drawdown and Backtest Biases

Summary

The document discusses whether a thesis must cite an originator when using terms such as maximum drawdown, drawdown duration, look-ahead bias, and survivorship bias. The responses treat these as established concepts and definitions, suggesting that an author who writes an original definition in their own words generally need not attribute it to a specific source. A definition copied closely or verbatim should be cited.

For formal academic writing, the answer recommends consulting scholarly literature rather than relying on general reference sites, then citing a source whose definition fits the analysis. It also suggests defining a concept in a way that is specific to the research. The responses differ slightly in emphasis: one encourages finding and crediting relevant academic work, while another considers citations unnecessary for common terminology. The exchange does not provide a comprehensive bibliography or resolve institutional citation standards, so authors should follow their field’s conventions and cite sources for substantive methods or claims beyond basic definitions.

Key ideas

• Commonly used terms do not automatically require attribution to a single originator.
• Definitions copied closely from a source should be cited.
• Academic literature can provide formal definitions and context for concepts used in a thesis.
• Authors can define terms in their own words and tailor them to their research, while following disciplinary citation norms.

Tags

# Reference for drawdown, look ahead bias and survivorship bias


# Reference for drawdown, look ahead bias and survivorship bias












I'm writing a PhD thesis and I am using terminology such as maximum drawdown, maximum drawdown duration, lookahead bias, and survivorship bias.

Although I understand what these are, and they are documented well (on Investopedia, Wikipedia, and StackExcange for example) -- is there someone who I should cite and give credit to for these ideas?

Failing that, is there a respected finance book that I can cite for which I could point an interested reader to find out more about these concepts?

Many thanks

## Answer by Drew (score 2, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/17391

So two things a) they are commonly known. b) they are definitions. So if you define it yourself, theres no need to cite anyone. But if you lift the definition from somewhere verbatim, then you should cite that paper.

I wouldnt look the wikipedia for the formal definitions, I'd try to find them in academic literature, think about the definition, see if you agree and cite the person. Failing that, I would write them myself and then theres no need for a cite.

For ex, define survivorship bias as they do:

http://www.afajof.org/SpringboardWebApp/userfiles/afa/file/Presentation%20Slides/2013/9260.pdf

and cite them, or define it in a way thats related to what your doing.

## Answer by radvan (score -2)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/17404

All terminologies are common knowledge. I do not think it is good idea to cite someone. It is like using word "equity" and looking for someone to cite. It doesn't make sense.

Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)

This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.