while I said I was not a scientific historian I am well enough read that I can say no, the tradition of citing all sources is a relatively modern invention. Definitely not widespread in Aristotle's time, and not extensively practiced by Aristotle himself who very seldom names any source and their work, but I was not sure if in Newton's time it was already beginning to be established as I have not actually read many scientific papers from that time (some philosophical, but not science)

Furthermore I can't help but feel some logic would lead us to conclude it is not natural to cite, why? Because in our time if you do not cite your sources in a lot of occupations dealing with knowledge you will be punished for it. It would be absurd to construct punishments for failing to do what people will naturally do, and to have those punishments so often called on.

Even if we give a very lenient interpretation of not citing sources we would probably have around 10% of papers with errors, and that is with the fear of punishment.

Citing when one should and accurately is not normal, it requires discipline to do it, or there would not be such a high failure rate at doing it.

"Forgive him, for he believes that the customs of his tribe are the laws of nature!"