Accuracy of References in Anesthesia & Analgesia Does Not Improve

Abstract

To the Editor: A good scientific journal needs to be accurate in references cited therein. In 1992, a report called the attention of authors and readers in the field of anesthesiology to the inaccuracy of the reference lists observed even in the esteemed journals, which include Anesthesia & Analgesia [1]. This report examined 1988 volumes of the journal. These circumstances prompted us to conduct the present study to examine whether the accuracy in the reference list of this journal was improved after this warning. To assess the status quo, we compared citation errors between the volumes of 1990 and 1994. All 1990 issues of Anesthesia & Analgesia (from January to December) were examined. Beginning with the first reference in the January issue and ending with the last reference in the December issue, every citation was numbered sequentially (n = 5343). Using a Table ofrandom numbers, we chose 100 references. References to nonjournal items, such as books and book chapters, were excluded from the analysis, leaving a total of 95 references for minute scrutiny. A reference form was prepared; this helped to identify any citation by its sequential number and the journal in which it appeared. Data fields for the cited reference corresponded to six standard elements of bibliographic citation: authors (including correct number, order, initials, and spelling), article title, journal title (including proper Index Medicus abbreviation), volume number, page number, and year. Citations were then verified by comparison with the original publication (primary source). Citations containing no errors were classified as correct; if an error existed in any element, the citation was classified as incorrect. In like manner, we identified 100 references from 1994 issues (from January to June; n = 5737) of the journal and analyzed 96 references, omitting 4 references which pertained to a nonjournal item. Data are presented as frequency or percentage, overall and by element for each year (1990 and 1994). Differences in frequency and percentage of errors between 1990 and 1994 were tested for statistical significance using the chi squared test. Fisher's exact test with an r times c contingency Table wasused when assumptions underlying the chi squared method were not met. P<0.05 was deemed significant. Consistent with the previous report examining 1988 issues of the journal, many references (36%) contained an error in at least one element of citation in 1990 Table 1. In 1994, the rate of citation errors remained unchanged (38%). Table 2 indicates that there were no differences in frequency distribution of errors between 1990 and 1994. Errors in the author field of citation were the most common. Title errors were the second most common. Errors of journal, volume, and year were less frequent.Table 1: Number of Errors per CitationTable 2: Distributions of Errors Among Each of the Six Chosen Bibliographic VariablesSince accurate reference lists provide readers with useful information, contributors to any journals have the responsibility for citing references accurately. However, many contributors failed to do so. We have confirmed that Anesthesia & Analgesia formerly had many citation errors in the reference list and have shown that the rate of citation errors is still not on the decrease at present. We believe that a decrease in citation errors will certainly make a journal more useful and reliable, bettering its quality. Contributors to Anesthesia & Analgesia are requested to make efforts to verify the accuracy of the reference lists before submission of their manuscripts. They should check the accuracy of author and title fields wherein many errors are being made even at present. Kahoru Nishina, MD Migiwa Asano, MD Katsuya Mikawa, MD Nobuhiro Maekawa, MD Hidefumi Obara, MD Department of Anaesthesiology, Kobe University School of Medicine, Kobe 650, Japan