The simplest type of mis-attribution, peer-reviewed mis-attribution is the substituting, as the source of an idea, an invalid but real source for the valid one.
Why would you want to do this?
To create the illusion of having done more research than you really have. If, for example, you're writing a paper with a minimum research requirement of five sources, and you've only cracked two books, then you would take the titles of three other books or articles and use them to source information you've gotten from the pair you've actually looked at.
The key is to use existing, not made up, sources.
If you're not comfortable using peer-reviewed mis-attribution on its own, then consider reinforcing it with a well-placed decoy.
Why would you want to do this?
To create the illusion of having done more research than you really have. If, for example, you're writing a paper with a minimum research requirement of five sources, and you've only cracked two books, then you would take the titles of three other books or articles and use them to source information you've gotten from the pair you've actually looked at.
The key is to use existing, not made up, sources.
If you're not comfortable using peer-reviewed mis-attribution on its own, then consider reinforcing it with a well-placed decoy.
see also: foreign mis-attribution
see also: ghost mis-attribution
see also: the foreign source