Accuracy of Published Medical Reference Citations

Goodrich, June E.; Roland, Charles G.

doi:10.2190/2b2a-f34l-0txg-wnq7

Cited by 33 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A simple explanation for this is that authors follow ‘least-effort behaviour’25 or are poor, careless or even flippant in their referencing 24 26. Another could be that authors’ reference management concepts on a surface level were without a deep understanding of the consequences and implications of the concept.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pseudo-understanding: an analysis of the dilution of value in healthcare

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pseudo-understanding: an analysis of the dilution of value in healthcare

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies have examined the bibliographic accuracy of citations in medical journals. An early study by Goodrich and Roland (1977) found, on direct checking of the original source, that among 2195 reference citations of ten major U.S. medical journals, published during 1975, 634 (29%) were erroneous. Another study that verified citations prior to publication in a single journal over a 13-month period displayed 1005 (54%) incorrect citations and 115 (6%) unverified citations out of 1867 references (Key and Roland, 1977).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Survey of Reference Accuracy in Five National Dental Journals

Doms

1989

J Dent Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have examined the bibliographic accuracy of citations in medical journals. The purpose of this study was to assess reference accuracy in five national dental journals. One hundred references were randomly selected from the March, 1987, issue of each of five dental journals (a total of 500 references). Each reference was verified either from the original source or from other indexing tools if the original was unavailable. References were divided into two categories: incorrect and correct. The number of incorrect references was counted and subdivided into major and minor errors. The errors were grouped by types of error: author, article title, citation (which included errors in journal title, volume, issue, and page numbers), and "unable to verify". This survey found 211 (42%) inaccuracies out of 500 references reviewed, with a total of 248 errors within the incorrect group. Out of the latter, 173 (70%) were minor errors, and 75 (30%) were major errors. Types of minor errors ranked as follows: minor article title errors, 86 (35%); minor author errors, 61 (25%); and minor citation errors, 26 (10%). Types of major errors were ranked as follows: incorrect journal citation, 32 (13%); "unable to verify", 25 (10%); incorrect author, 10 (4%); and incorrect article title, 8 (3%). The results of this survey showed that nearly half of the references reviewed were inaccurate.

show abstract

“…In the Goodrich and Roland (1977), Hartmann (1984), Key and Roland (1977), and Poyer (1979) studies, error rates relative to year of publication ranged from 0.4% to 2.0%. The rate for both CES and JCP was 1.9%.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Total errors and faults detected revealed the following counts and percentages: 634 (28.9%) by Goodrich and Roland (1977), 1,005 (57.4%) by Key and Roland (1977), and 466 (19.0%) by Poyer (1979). In one study Boyce and Banning (1979), using two nonmedical journals, reported 66 errors (17.6%) in the Journal of the American Society f o r Information Science for issues appearing in 1976 and 84 errors (13.2%) in the Personnel and Guidance Journal for issues appearing in the same year.…”

Section: Data From Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reference Inaccuracies in Two Counseling Journals

White¹

1987

Couns Edu & Supervision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article, book, and dissertation entries in reference lists in one volume year for two counseling journals were searched for accuracy. Among 2,388 verified references (85.7% of all cited references), 1,072 (44.9%) contained at least one error. Multiple errors in some references produced a total of 1,643 faults or errors. Data were tallied by reference segments (e.g., author, title). Findings paralleled data in five reports of similar research, principally for medical journals, published in the 1970s. The nature and frequencies of deviations from the original source were such that only some of the errors could be explained as typographical. At least with reference list preparation, writers in the counseling field, as well as elsewhere, seem to be taking insufficient care in their scholarly writing.

show abstract

Accuracy of Published Medical Reference Citations

Cited by 33 publications

References 0 publications

Pseudo-understanding: an analysis of the dilution of value in healthcare

Pseudo-understanding: an analysis of the dilution of value in healthcare

A Survey of Reference Accuracy in Five National Dental Journals

Reference Inaccuracies in Two Counseling Journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About