Citation Inaccuracies in Influential Surgical Journals

Abstract

Meta-analyses report 20% to 25% citation inaccuracy rates in biomedical literature. 1,2 Citation inaccuracies risk amplifying misinformation and undermining research validity. 3 While many inaccuracies are likely blunders, patterns such as highly cited articles garnering repeated citations via the Matthew effect deserve recognition. 4 We aimed to investigate the prevalence and potential etiologies of citation inaccuracies in surgical literature by systematically characterizing influential surgical articles and references they cited. We hypothesized that citation inaccuracies in influential surgical journals are common but hoped that a simple checklist may facilitate accurate surgical science dissemination.

Reference Hygiene and Death on the Internet – Decay, Rot, Half-Life, Deterioration, and Corruption

“…Studies of medical and specialty journal article references after publication assessing retrievability and checked for accuracy and wording interpretation from the original report ranges from 9%, 1 10%, 2 14.5%, 3 19.7%, 4 20%, 5 to 25.4% 6 error rate. Errors include failing to substantiate statements, wording unrelated to the statement, contradictions to the reference assertion, oversimplification, and overgeneralization of what was originally stated.…”

“…With a documented 9% – 25% misquote/misstatement rate this is not the case. 1 – 6 Reviews of articles after publication evaluating for quotation accuracy and statement paraphrasing, strongly suggests that either statements are not checked or were misunderstood by the reviewer. 1 – 6 This represents incorrect or false information to readers as “fact.” Authors give reference citation information as part of their manuscript, listing the names(s) of reference author(s), article title, and where and when it was published.…”

“…This gives readers information about who, where, and when the reference was made and how to retrieve the source and learn more. Assessment of reference availability of medical articles after publication where all references to the original articles were available, read, and analyzed compared to what an author said, showed that nine to 25 percent (%) of statements cited were incorrectly quoted and misrepresented as “facts.” 1 – 6 These errors and distortions become imbedded and magnified over time and need to be accessed for what was actually said or how data was interpreted at the time of publication. This requires access to the references.…”

The Weight of Surgical Knowledge

“…These literature navigation tools will require thoughtful development; how surgeons curate literature—which articles are read, gain attention, and cited—may prompt variable future surgical practices from the same corpus of surgical knowledge. Inaccuracies in published content 12 and citations 13 amplify the importance of ensuring surgeons have tools to appraise comprehensive literature and avoid knowledge silos.…”

Evaluation of Citation Inaccuracies in Surgical Literature by Journal Type, Study Design, and Level of Evidence: Towards Safeguarding the Peer-Review Process

“…When citations are referenced inappropriately, not only is the legitimacy of the study that incorrectly cited the reference brought into question, but there is a high risk of misinformation. 2 This is especially true when the inaccuracy occurs in a prestigious and well-respected journal as there is an expectation that the research published is valid. Moreover, there is a risk that a single citation inaccuracy will lead to the propagation of misinformation if authors do not read the original referenced study.…”