Citation Error Rate Research Articles

Citation Accuracy in Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals indexed in the Web of Science

The accuracy of the citations is crucial in scientific writing. The present study aims to investigate the accuracy of citations in the obstetrics and gynecology journals indexed in the Web of Science. Major and minor citation errors, type of errors, and citation errors in the Q1 to Q4 journals investigate as the objectives. The journals were retrieved by searching the “Obstetrics & Gynecology” category in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) in the Web of Science, and journals in different quartiles (Q1-Q4) were identified by applying the JIF Quartile filter. Eight hundred forty citations were selected from articles in the first five Q1 to Q4 journals using systematic sampling and article type citations were included in the study (730 citations). Bibliographic elements were assessed for citation errors. Findings show that 554 citations (75.89 %) involved errors. Only 24.1 per cent of the citations had no errors. The highest citation errors were related to the volume and issue, with 582 major errors (79.72 %). The citation accuracy in the Q2 and Q3 journals is higher than in other journals. The high rate of citation errors, especially in volumes and numbers, indicates that the journals need to pay attention to citation accuracy in these sections and the use of valid and complete citation styles.

Reference Errors in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Literature.

Objective Proper use of citation and quotation is crucial to the integrity of the medical literature. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of quotation and citation errors in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OHNS) journals and how they have changed over time. Study Design Literature review. Methods Fifty references were randomly selected from the first published issue of 2017 for 8 leading OHNS journals. These were analyzed for errors in citation (data elements by which the article is referenced) and quotation (factual inaccuracies of the reference). Citation errors were categorized as major, intermediate, or minor. Quotation errors were categorized as major or minor. Results were compared with data from 1997 articles. Results Citation errors occurred in 17% of all references studied, with 34% classified as major. Quotation errors occurred in 9%, with 69% classified as major. There was no association between journal impact factor and total number of errors ( r = -0.33, P = .42). This compares with a 37% citation error rate (32% major) and 17% quotation error rate (65% major) from 1997. Conclusion Citation and quotation errors are still prevalent in the OHNS literature albeit decreased from previously reported data. Improvement in citation errors may be due to technological improvements in reference management. However, it is the continued responsibility of the authors, reviewers, and editors to further reduce error rates to maintain the integrity of our publications.

Accuracy of Citation and Quotation in Foot and Ankle Surgery Journals

A recent review of technical editing of research suggests that over one third of references cited in articles in medical journals have some inaccuracies and one fifth of quotations to references in these articles are not accurate. Two hundred and forty-nine citation references and 408 quotes from 25 articles published in 5 orthopaedic journals were randomly selected to determine referencing accuracy. The presence of citation errors was examined by 1 of the authors while the presence of quotation errors was determined by 2 of the authors. Full copies of articles as well as the references were obtained to compare the accuracies. The total citation error rate was 41% (103 out of 249 references), and the total quotation error rate was 20% (80 out of 408 quotes) for the 5 orthopaedic journals. Citation and quotation errors were still relatively common in orthopaedic journals. While we did not identify any factors associated with citation and quotation errors, the use of technical editing may reduce the amount of citation errors. Readers and authors should be aware that many citations of studies are inaccurate and one should review the original source if it is to be used in another publication or to guide clinical treatment.

As Well as Proper Citation, References in Biomedical Articles Should Be Accurate

I read with interest the Editorial by Professor Izet Masic on the importance of reference citation in biomedical articles (1). I acknowledge the importance of properly crediting authors of published articles in peer-reviewed journals in order for that journal’s impact factor and also for the author’s H-index. However, I feel that the Editorial has overlooked an important factor in proper reference citation, namely the accuracy of references in the medical and biomedical literature. Many studies on reference accuracy have been done in the biomedical literature with reports of 4.1% to 40.3% of reference inaccuracies in leading medical journals (2). The last Cochrane review of 66 published studies of reference accuracy in 2008 showed a median citation error rate of 38% (3). Apart from problems in locating the cited journal article if a major reference element, such as year of publication or authors names, is erroneous; is that cited authors are not credited with citation to their article thus potentially affecting their H-index. The H-index nowadays is a major factor in academic promotions. Of course, apart from correct reference citation, it is important for the cited literature to be accurately quoted. The Cochrane review also showed a medium quotation error rate of 20% (3).

Reference Accuracy in Peer-Reviewed Pediatric Orthopaedic Literature

Reference accuracy of articles published in the biomedical literature is determined by the presence of citation and quotation errors. A recent review demonstrated that the median citation error rate per biomedical journal was 39%, and the median quotation error rate per journal was 20%. Reference accuracy in pediatric orthopaedic articles has not been previously reported, to our knowledge. Two hundred references from twenty articles published in four peer-reviewed orthopaedic journals were randomly selected for assessment of citation and quotation accuracy. Full-text copies of all original references were obtained by interlibrary loan methods and reviewed directly to establish citation accuracy. The presence of citation errors was determined by a single investigator. The relevance of citation errors was determined by assessing the ease of reference retrieval through PubMed. Quotation accuracy was determined by two examiners who reviewed each of the twenty articles and 200 references to compare the claims made for the references in the article against the data and opinions expressed in the actual reference. The total citation error rate across all of the journals was 26% (fifty-one of 200 references) with a 95% confidence interval of 16.5% to 37.3%. The median citation error rate per journal was 27% (range, 10% to 38%). Although citation errors were common, most were of minimal significance, as 196 of the 200 references could be retrieved with ease from PubMed. The total quotation error rate across all of the articles was 38% (152 of 398 reference citations) with a 95% confidence interval of 30.1% to 47.0%. The median quotation error rate per journal was 38% (range, 28% to 46%). Citation and quotation errors are common in the pediatric orthopaedic literature. Reference accuracy continues to be a substantial problem in the biomedical literature despite recent technological advances such as online databases, easily accessible search engines, and widely available bibliographic software.

Accuracy of references in the ophthalmic literature

Accuracy of references in the ophthalmic literature

Accuracy of references in burns journals

Aims To study the incidence and risk factors for citation and quotation errors in two major burns surgery journals. Methods 120 references were randomly selected from original articles published in the following two journals – January to December 2006 issues of Burns and Journal of Burn Care & Research. For each reference, the ease of retrieval on PubMed and the presence of citation errors were noted. Two independent observers analysed each reference for quotation errors. The characteristics of the root article, that is, type of study, author numbers, number of references and article word count were noted. Results Of the 120 selected references, 117 referred to articles from indexed medical journals published in English. Among these, 4 articles could not be retrieved due to fatal citation errors (3.3%). A further 12 citation errors were noted giving a total citation error rate of 13.3% (95% CI: 6.74–19.93%). Of the 117 references analysed, the quotation error rate was 13.7% (95% CI: 8.6–19.5%) half of which were major errors. There was no significant association between the combined error rate per article and the journal (Kruskal–Wallis test; p = 0.861, type of study (Kruskal–Wallis test; p = 0.717), author numbers (Spearman's ρ = 0.197, p = 0.423), article length (Spearman's ρ = 0.118, p = 0.705) or references per article (Spearman's ρ = 0.229, p = 0.189). Conclusion Significant numbers of citation and quotation errors still appear in current burns literature. Incorrect spelling of author names and partial omissions of article titles were the two most common errors. No observable underlying factors were identified in this study. The present results serve as a reminder to authors, editors and peer reviewers for more care of citation accuracy when striving for their common goal of scientific excellence.

Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals.

Most journals try to improve their articles by technical editing processes such as proof-reading, editing to conform to 'house styles', grammatical conventions and checking accuracy of cited references. Despite the considerable resources devoted to technical editing, we do not know whether it improves the accessibility of biomedical research findings or the utility of articles. This is an update of a Cochrane methodology review first published in 2003. To assess the effects of technical editing on research reports in peer-reviewed biomedical journals, and to assess the level of accuracy of references to these reports. We searched The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2007; MEDLINE (last searched July 2006); EMBASE (last searched June 2007) and checked relevant articles for further references. We also searched the Internet and contacted researchers and experts in the field. Prospective or retrospective comparative studies of technical editing processes applied to original research articles in biomedical journals, as well as studies of reference accuracy. Two review authors independently assessed each study against the selection criteria and assessed the methodological quality of each study. One review author extracted the data, and the second review author repeated this. We located 32 studies addressing technical editing and 66 surveys of reference accuracy. Only three of the studies were randomised controlled trials. A 'package' of largely unspecified editorial processes applied between acceptance and publication was associated with improved readability in two studies and improved reporting quality in another two studies, while another study showed mixed results after stricter editorial policies were introduced. More intensive editorial processes were associated with fewer errors in abstracts and references. Providing instructions to authors was associated with improved reporting of ethics requirements in one study and fewer errors in references in two studies, but no difference was seen in the quality of abstracts in one randomised controlled trial. Structuring generally improved the quality of abstracts, but increased their length. The reference accuracy studies showed a median citation error rate of 38% and a median quotation error rate of 20%. Surprisingly few studies have evaluated the effects of technical editing rigorously. However there is some evidence that the 'package' of technical editing used by biomedical journals does improve papers. A substantial number of references in biomedical articles are cited or quoted inaccurately.

Accuracy of references in general surgical journals — An old problem revisited

Reference errors in biomedicals journals are well documented. Increasing use of electronic databases and bibliographic software may change the nature and frequency of errors. To study the current incidence of reference errors in four major general surgical journals. Seventy-five references were randomly selected from original articles published in one issue of each of four general surgical journals. For each reference, ease of retrieval on PubMed and the presence of citation errors were noted. Two observers independently reviewed each reference for quotation errors. Of the 300 selected references, 261 from indexed English language biomedical journals were analysed. Retrieval from PubMed was impossible or difficult in six instances, giving a major citation error rate of 2.3%. Overall (major and minor) citation error rate was 11.1%. Of the 258 references that could be retrieved, 20 (7.8%) had quotation errors, 80% of which were considered major. The overall citation error rate was significantly different across the four journals. There was moderate correlation between quotation error rate and number of references in each original article. Errors in references still appear in current surgical literature. Solutions to address this problem have been discussed.

The relationship between citation errors and library anxiety: An empirical study of doctoral students in education

The present study investigated whether levels of library anxiety predict simultaneously the citation error rate and quality of reference lists in doctoral dissertation proposals among 93 doctoral students in education. This study was unique for at least two reasons. First, it was one of the first studies to examine bibliographic citation inaccuracies in doctoral research proposals. Second, the current investigation was one of the first to investigate the psychological characteristics of doctoral students who commit such errors. A canonical correlation analysis revealed a multivariate relationship between levels of library anxiety and both the citation error rate and quality of reference lists. This finding suggests that level of library anxiety plays an important role in students’ ability to construct accurate reference lists. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Characteristics of doctoral students who commit citation errors

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate the citation error rate and quality of reference lists in doctoral dissertation proposals. This research also sought to examine the relationship between perfectionism and frequency of citation errors and the adherence of the reference list to the fidelity of the chosen citation style among doctoral students. Also of interest was to determine which demographic variables predict citation errors and quality of the reference list.Design/methodology/approachParticipants were 64 doctoral students from various disciplines enrolled in a graduate‐level, dissertation preparatory course at a large southeastern university in the USA.FindingsFindings indicated that graduate students with relatively high levels of self‐oriented perfectionism and other‐oriented perfectionism tended to commit the least citation errors and construct reference lists that departed the furthest from the citation style stipulations. Participants’ dissertation proposals, on average, contained more than 12 missing or inconsistent citations. This indicated that for every three citations included, one of them represented some type of error. Regression analyses revealed that: students with the lowest expectation levels tended to commit the highest rate of citation errors; and students who have taken the most courses in their graduate programs tended to receive the lowest scores pertaining to the quality of reference lists.Practical implicationsThese findings suggest a need for more formal and more deliberate approaches for all instructors to instill in students the importance of avoiding citation errors.Originality/valueTo date, no research has investigated the role that perfectionism plays in relation to the commission of bibliographic citation errors.

Reference List Accuracy in Social Work Journals

This exploratory study investigated the rate of citation errors in the reference lists of five social work journals. High error rates have been found in journals in fields such as medicine and psychology but have not yet been investigated in social work journals. A stratified, computer-generated random sample was selected (N = 500, 100 per journal), and each reference was verified against the original work for accuracy in six fields: article title, author name(s), journal title, pagination, volume, and year. In examining the total sample of 500 references across the five journals, 206 references (41.2%) contained at least one error. Suggestions for reduction of error rates are discussed, as are suggestions for future study in this area.

Spotting Reference Errors

While authors are ultimately responsible to ensure that reference citations are correct, nurse editors and reviewers can use practical strategies to detect errors before publication. This author, an experienced reviewer, provides warning signs you can look for to uncover hidden citation errors as you review manuscripts.

A survey of reference accuracy in two Asian dermatologic journals (the Journal of Dermatology and the Korean Journal of Dermatology).

The reference list is an important part of a scientific article. To be useful, it must be accurate. To evaluate the reference accuracy in the Journal of Dermatology and the Korean Journal of Dermatology, we randomly selected 100 references from each journal and checked them against the original articles. The overall rate of citation errors was 24% in the Journal of Dermatology and 33% in the Korean Journal of Dermatology. Errors in the title and author names were common, each occurring in about half of the citation errors. The overall rate of quotation errors was 14% in the Journal of Dermatology and 27% in the Korean Journal of Dermatology. This study shows that the rate of citation errors is unacceptably high in the Journal of Dermatology and the Korean Journal of Dermatology, which significantly diminishes the value of the reference list. We would strongly urge that the peer review of citation and quotation accuracy should be strengthened.

Accuracy of References in Anesthesia & Analgesia Does Not Improve

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

Reference accuracy in the dermatologic literature

The reference list is an important part of a scientific article. To be useful it must be accurate. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of references in the dermatologic literature. We randomly selected 240 references (60 per journal) from the Archives of Dermatology, the British Journal of Dermatology, this Journal, and the Journal of Investigative Dermatology and checked them against the original articles. The overall rate of citation error (the information identifying the source) was 41%, and the quotation error (inconsistency between the statement referenced and the original source) was 35%. Only 36% of references were free of error. This study shows that the rate of citation and quotation errors is unacceptably high in the dermatologic literature, which significantly diminishes the value of the reference list.

A1255 TRUST, BUT VERIFY

To determine the accuracy of bibliographic citation in the anesthesia literature, we reviewed all 1988 volumes of ANESTHESIOLOGY, Anesthesia and Analgesia, British Journal of Anaesthesia, and Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia and sequentially numbered all references appearing in that year (n = 22,748). One hundred references from each of the four journals were randomly selected. After citations to nonjournal articles (i.e., books or book chapters) were excluded, the remaining 348 citations were analyzed in detail. Six standard bibliographic elements--authors' names, article title, journal title, volume number, page numbers, and year--were examined in each selected reference. Primary sources were reviewed, unless our institution did not own the source or could not obtain it through interlibrary loan, in which case standard indexes, abstracting services, and computerized databases were consulted. Each element was checked for accuracy, and references were classified as either correct or incorrect. A reference was correct if each element of the citation was identical to its source. Of the examined references, more than half (50.3%) contained an error in at least one element. The elements most likely to be inaccurate were, in descending order, article title, author, page numbers, journal title, volume number, and year. No significant differences (P = 0.283) existed in the error rates of the four journals; the percentage of citations containing at least one error ranged from 44% (Anesthesia and Analgesia) to 56% (British Journal of Anaesthesia). The citation error rate of anesthesia journals is similar to that reported in other specialties, where error rates ranging from 38% to 54% have been documented.