Abstract
In order to effectively contribute to scientific knowledge, biomedical observations have to be validated and debated by scientists in the relevant field. Along this debate that mainly takes place in the scientific literature, citation of previous studies plays a major role. However, only a few academic studies have quantitatively evaluated the suitability and accuracy of scientific citations. Here we review these academic studies. Two types of misuse have been pointed out: Citation bias and citation distortion. First, scientific citations favor positive results and those supporting authors' conclusion. Second, many statements linked to a reference actually misrepresent the referenced findings. About 10% of all citations in biomedicine are strongly inaccurate and misleading for the reader. Finally, we give two examples illustrating how some citation misuses do affect public health: The opioid crisis in the USA and the unjustified fostering of hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19 treatment in France.
Highlights
In order to effectively contribute to scientific knowledge, biomedical observations have to be validated and debated by scientists in the relevant field
Many statements linked to a reference misrepresent the referenced findings
About 10% of all citations in biomedicine are strongly inaccurate and misleading for the reader
Summary
> Les observations biomédicales ne deviennent une source de connaissance qu’après un débat entre chercheurs. PFriaernrçeoSisonGiognoon tion des études antérieures tient un rôle majeur, mais les travaux académiques qui en évaluent l’usage sont rares. Quelques études de cas ont montré connaissances qu’après avoir été débattus et validés par que le mésusage des citations peut générer, pendant les chercheurs experts du domaine. Parmi celles-ci, la plus connue est celle de Stel’introduction de chaque article, les auteurs présentent ven Greenberg parue en 2009 (qui affiche 240 citations l’état des connaissances et ce qui motive leur collecte de dans SCOPUS, en mars 2021) [4]. Plus généralement, dans le débat scientifique a montré que les travaux qui réfutent cette hypothèse conduisant au progrès des connaissances. De nombreux articles ont évalué délivré par l’étude antérieure citée différait en fait de ce la qualité des observations biomédicales. Ils ont pointé qu’en disaient les auteurs citant cette référence [4]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
