Osprey is certainly a staple for people interested in military history and arms and armor. It is often the "gateway drug" for a lot of people into this interest. I try to avoid using Osprey as a source when citing things for my own work, but I often use them as a jumping off point, or to look for some extra sources.

However, occasionally therein lies the problem, some Osprey books do not have sources/bibliography listed in them. Authors like David Nicolle, Ross Cowan and Ian Heath cite sources. But I have come across several that don't have a bibliography at all. I know that Osprey is not an academic publication, but there should be a line drawn here. It is simply not acceptable to publish a work on any historical topic without any sources acknowledged. Unless the author witnessed the events themselves (doubtful, unless they poses eternal life), they need to show where they got their information. Using the work of other historian's works without citation or acknowledgement is at its best disrespectful, and at its worst, thievery.

I don't wish to name names, I just want these authors to do better, because some of them write good content. I just cannot trust or use their content because they don't provide sources (the latest I have is from 2015). This will also make me hesitant to buy any future Osprey books unless there is a guarantee of some kind of bibliography, or it is buy a trusted author. This isn't much to ask for, not citing work is simply lazy. I want Osprey to do better because they are one of the publishers that led to me getting an MA in history, and I want them to continue to contribute to this community.

Osprey is useless for beginners because you need a working knowledge of the subject to know which ones are any good. Most are only useful for the photos of extant artefacts There are some exceptions like the authors you mentioned but not many.

I wouldn't go as far as to call them "useless." Part of getting into an interest is slowly figuring out how to sort out reliable and unreliable information. A basic Google search of most Osprey authors is enough to figure out reliability. Another plus for Osprey is their low cost. Most of the best arms and armour books are out-of-print and horrifically expensive. So unless they have university access, or have a good library nearby, it is a decent option that isn't forums and Youtubers. The content of Osprey has improved immensely in the past decade or so, it just seems to be a few "legacy" authors that are still holding them back with their bad practices.

I do get what you are saying though. It is difficult to "unlearn" bad information once it takes hold, but I believe that is a given in any field. Personally I would rather people have a few bits of misinformation in their heads than not be interested in this stuff at all.

Here's a question I have about these (as somebody who has a TON of them): is the information in these things wrong or just un-cited? Of course, if they are un-cited then the layperson can't check. But do experts who know the sources have a consensus that these things are basically spreading around disinformation? I think these are for just people with a casual interest in history who want to read about the topic. They are not for people writing their dissertations, or trying to publish in an academic journal. Of course it would be nice to have everything cited, but if the information is accurate, doesn't that at least add to their value beyond pictures?

As another owner of many Ospreys, they come in good, bad and indifferent. Author quality is something to look for but there is a danger that they have "go to" writers, who may know very little about the topic. I have some good David Nicolle Ospreys and some poor ones, where he clearly doesn't know the subject well. Osprey can be very reluctant to either modernise their coverage, perhaps with a new author, or even produce revised editions. This means that sometimes coverage can be dated.

Another thing to bear in mind is that Osprey have numerous series of books (Men-at-arms, Elite, Campaign, Warrior etc.) and each have different editorial requirements. So, some have extensive bibliographies, some minimal or non-existent. Some series come with glossaries and indexes, others don't. I personally am pleased with the small group of Weapon series books I have - they wouldn't meet the needs of a scholar or collector I'm sure, but they are a good, well-illustrated introduction. These days, though, I'd be cautious at investing in a Men-at-Arms title.