Declining citation accuracy in polar research

T Mcintyre,N.S Haussmann

doi:10.1017/s0032247421000607

Abstract

Abstract Accurate citation practices are important to ensure a robust knowledge base and overall trustworthy academic enterprise. The prevalence of poor citation practices has been assessed in multiple fields, resulting in estimates of inaccurate citations ranging typically between 15% and 25%. Here, we assessed the accuracy of citations in research articles extracted from 11 journals with a polar sciences focus. Thirty percent of citations from recent articles (published between 2018 and 2019) and 26 % of citations between 1980 and 2019 were found to be inaccurate. We found no evidence for differences in citation accuracy between the journals assessed, or effects on citation accuracy associated with the number of authors, number of references, position of references or if a citation was a self-citation or not. Importantly, we present evidence for a decline in citation accuracy between 1980 and 2019 in polar sciences. Citation practices are unlikely to improve unless journals provide incentives for scholars to be more meticulous, and we recommend active monitoring of citation accuracy and citation appropriateness by reviewers and editorial staff.

Highlights

Science advances in an incremental fashion, whereby researchers typically rely on published research to inform their own work
The accuracy of citation practices has been assessed for a number of fields, notably in many medical fields, ecology (e.g. Drake et al, 2013; Todd, Guest, Lu, & Ming Chou, 2010; Todd, Yeo, Li, & Ladle, 2007), physical geography (e.g. Haussmann, McIntyre, Bumby, & Loubser, 2013), learning sciences (e.g. Martella et al, 2021) and, more recently, general high-impact science journals (e.g. Smith & Cumberledge, 2020)
Our results suggest that between 26% (1980–2019) and 30% (2018/ 2019 only) of citations in polar sciences journal articles are not accurate

Summary

Introduction

Science advances in an incremental fashion, whereby researchers typically rely on published research to inform their own work. Referring to previously peer-reviewed, published research is important to acknowledge the existing knowledge base but to provide support for assumptions, methods used, conclusions reached and arguments put forward. Haussmann, McIntyre, Bumby, & Loubser, 2013), learning sciences (e.g. Martella et al, 2021) and, more recently, general high-impact science journals (e.g. Smith & Cumberledge, 2020). These findings are typically worrisome, with many studies suggesting that more than 20% of the citations in their respective fields are inaccurate These findings are typically worrisome, with many studies suggesting that more than 20% of the citations in their respective fields are inaccurate (e.g. Jergas & Baethge, 2015; Martella et al, 2021; Todd et al, 2010)

Methods

Results

Conclusion