Introduction: This paper looks at the issue of inadequate and omitted citations in manuscripts by collecting the experiential opinions of researchers from the dual perspectives of manuscript reviewers and authors. Method: An online survey was conducted with participation from 207 respondents who had experience of reviewing and authoring research papers. Analysis: The collected data were analysed quantitatively. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were performed. Results: Reviewer and author groups opined that manuscript authors fail to cite seminal and topically-similar papers, while the reviewer group indicated that authors include too few papers and cite irrelevant papers. The lack of experience was perceived as a major reason for inadequate and omitted citations, followed by lack of overall research experience and working in interdisciplinary research projects. Authors needed external assistance in finding papers for a literature review. Google Scholar was the most used system among the list of information sources. Conclusions: The findings may benefit subsequent studies conducted to solve the issue of inadequate and omitted citations through process improvements and technological interventions. The findings helped in identifying three tasks for a literature review and manuscript writing assistive system. The usage preferences on information sources helped in shortlisting Google Scholar's user-interface as a basis for the user-interface design for the assistive system. [Paper presented at the Information Seeking in Context (ISIC): The Information Behaviour Conference, Part 1 (11th, Zadar, Croatia, September 20-23, 2016).]