References that anyone can edit: review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature

Bould, M. Dylan; Hladkowicz, Emily; Pigford, Ashlee-Ann; Ufholz, Lee‐Anne; Postonogova, Tatyana; Shin, Eun-Kyung; Boet, Sylvain

doi:10.1136/bmj.g1585

Cited by 41 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…), but the database with the highest citations overall was the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Specific citations to Wikipedia only occurred once, which did not reflect the trend that Bould found in a recent study of Wikipedia use in peer-reviewed journal articles [11]. The government documents category was heavily populated with citations from the US Food and Drug Administration, Table 1 Format type by source journal and citation frequency WHO, and legislative and regulatory bodies governing pharmacy practices.…”

Section: Overall Cited Itemsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Mapping the literature of hospital pharmacy

Barrett

Helwig

Neves³

2016

J Med Libr Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Overall Cited Itemsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Mapping the literature of hospital pharmacy

Barrett

Helwig

Neves³

2016

J Med Libr Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Wikipedia's prevalence in scholarly communication has also caught the attention of researchers. In a unique departure from assessing Wikipedia's citations, Bould, et al (2014) examine the prevalence of Wikipedia citations in peer-reviewed health sciences journals indexed in PubMed, Medline, or Embase [63]. The study finds a small but growing frequency of Wikipedia citations in peer-reviewed health sciences literature and that most of these citations occur after 2010.…”

Section: Quality Of Wikipedia's Health Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource in various contexts: A scoping review

Smith

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWikipedia's health content is the most frequently visited resource for health information on the internet. While the literature provides strong evidence for its high usage, a comprehensive literature review of Wikipedia's role within the health context has not yet been reported. ObjectiveTo conduct a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed, published literature to learn what the existing body of literature says about Wikipedia as a health information resource and what publication trends exist, if any.Results 89 articles and conference proceedings were selected for inclusion in the review. Four categories of literature emerged: 1) studies that situate Wikipedia as a health information resource; 2) investigations into the quality of Wikipedia, 3) explorations of the utility of Wikipedia in education, and 4) studies that demonstrate the utility of Wikipedia in research. ConclusionThe literature positions Wikipedia as a prominent health information resource in various contexts for the public, patients, students, and practitioners seeking health information online. Wikipedia's health content is accessed frequently, and its pages regularly rank highly in Google search results. While Wikipedia itself is well into its second decade, the academic discourse around Wikipedia within the context of health is still young and the academic PLOS ONE | https://doi.

show abstract

“…Giles, ) because anonymous authors may add incorrect information (Mehegan, ). As a result, Wikipedia should be used cautiously in higher education (Bayliss, ; Chen, ; Eijkman, ; Luyt & Tan, ) and should not be used in academic publications (Bould et al, ; Cohen, ). Although Wikipedia is widely used for learning, teaching, and other academic activities, (e.g., Aibar, Lladós‐Masllorens, Meseguer‐Artola, Minguillón, & Lerga, ; Dooley, ; Giles, ; Head & Eisenberg, ; Knight & Pryke, ; Lim, ; Soules, ), it is not clear what the main audience for Wikipedia articles citing academic research is: students, academics, or the general public.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are wikipedia citations important evidence of the impact of scholarly articles and books?

Kousha

Thelwall

2016

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual academics and research evaluators often need to assess the value of published research. Although citation counts are a recognized indicator of scholarly impact, alternative data is needed to provide evidence of other types of impact, including within education and wider society. Wikipedia is a logical choice for both of these because the role of a general encyclopaedia is to be an understandable repository of facts about a diverse array of topics and hence it may cite research to support its claims. To test whether Wikipedia could provide new evidence about the impact of scholarly research, this article counted citations to 302,328 articles and 18,735 monographs in English indexed by Scopus in the period 2005 to 2012. The results show that citations from Wikipedia to articles are too rare for most research evaluation purposes, with only 5% of articles being cited in all fields. In contrast, a third of monographs have at least one citation from Wikipedia, with the most in the arts and humanities. Hence, Wikipedia citations can provide extra impact evidence for academic monographs. Nevertheless, the results may be relatively easily manipulated and so Wikipedia is not recommended for evaluations affecting stakeholder interests.

show abstract

References that anyone can edit: review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature

Cited by 41 publications

References 27 publications

Mapping the literature of hospital pharmacy

Mapping the literature of hospital pharmacy

Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource in various contexts: A scoping review

Are wikipedia citations important evidence of the impact of scholarly articles and books?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About