Referencing and quotation accuracy in four manual therapy journals

Gosling, Cameron; Cameron, Melainie; Gibbons, Peter

doi:10.1016/s1356-689x(03)00056-0

Cited by 52 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A meticulous referee with bona fide expertise in a submitted article's topic may recognise misappropriated citations, but such reviewers are atypical. Authors are undoubtedly in the best position to improve citation practices (Hansen & McIntire 1994, Gosling et al 2004, and the senior author should shoulder the bulk of any accountability (Gupta et al 2005). 'The author's responsibilities are absolutely clear: first, to consult the original paper; second, to quote the original material correctly and in context; and third, to present the bibliographic reference accurately' (Biebuyck 1992, p. 2).…”

Section: Remediationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More proactive measures could be instigated to address citation malpractice, including requiring authors to sign a declaration stating their citations have been verified (Goldberg et al 1993), instigating a system of random audits (Gosling et al 2004), or publishing errors that are spotted by readers (de Lacey et al 1985). A few references from a new submission could be selected randomly by the editor, and the authors would have to supply these with the supporting sections highlighted (Schulmeister 1998); with online submission, this process could even be automated.…”

Section: Remediationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fenton et al 2000, Gosling et al 2004, Lukić et al 2004. Todd et al (2007) were the first to measure citation misconduct in another branch of biology: ecology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

One in four citations in marine biology papers is inappropriate

Todd¹,

Guest²,

Lu³

et al. 2010

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citing sources that do not support the assertion being made can misinform readers, perpetuate mistakes and deny credit to the researchers who should have been acknowledged. To quantify citation fidelity in marine biology, we retrieved 198 papers from 2 recent issues of 33 marine biology journals. From each paper we randomly selected 1 citation, recovered the source material, and evaluated its appropriateness. We discovered that the assertion was 'clearly supported' by the citation in only 75.8% of cases, the support was 'ambiguous' in 10.6% of cases and the citation offered 'no support' to the original statement in 6.0% of cases. The remaining 7.6% of cases were classified as 'empty' (citations to secondary sources). We found no relationship between citation appropriateness and the position of the assertion in the paper, number of authors, number of references, article length and Journal Impact Factor. That 1 in 4 citations in marine biology should be viewed with scepticism is alarming and has important ramifications for both scholarship and bibliometrics.

show abstract

Section: Remediationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Remediationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

One in four citations in marine biology papers is inappropriate

Todd¹,

Guest²,

Lu³

et al. 2010

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ved sitatfeil er det naerliggende å anta at forfatterne ikke har lest originalartikkelen eller at vedkommende ikke har forstått innholdet. Sitering reflekterer det akademiske arbeidet til forfattere og tidsskriftet, og dårlig sitering reduserer verdien av publiserte artikler (13)(14). En vanlig feil er å sitere redaktøren av en antologi og ikke forfatteren av det aktuelle kapitlet.…”

Section: Sitering Og Kilderunclassified

Etikk i forskning og fagutvikling

Sørbye¹

2012

Sykepleien

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evans et al (1990) studied 150 randomly selected references cited in three medical journals and found a 48 percent error rate. Other studies have found error rates of 56 to 67 percent in obstetrics and gynecology journals (Roach et al 1997), 32 percent in nursing journals, including 43 major errors in the 180 references examined (Schulmeister 1998), 40 percent in otolaryngology/head and neck surgery journals, with 12 percent major errors (Fenton et al 2000), 36 percent in manual therapy journals (Gosling et al 2004), and 34 percent in biomedical informatics journals (Aronsky et al 2005). Schulmeister (1998) includes a summary of earlier literature in this area.…”

Section: Prior Evidence: Do Researchers Read Relevant Papers?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ombudsman: Verification of Citations: Fawlty Towers of Knowledge?

Armstrong

2008

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The prevalence of faulty citations impedes the growth of scientific knowledge. Faulty citations include omissions of relevant papers, incorrect references, and quotation errors that misreport findings. We discuss key studies in these areas. We then examine citations to "Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys," one of the most frequently cited papers from the Journal of Marketing Research, to illustrate these issues. This paper is especially useful in testing for quotation errors because it provides specific operational recommendations on adjusting for nonresponse bias; therefore, it allows us to determine whether the citing papers properly used the findings. By any number of measures, those doing survey research fail to cite this paper and, presumably, make inadequate adjustments for nonresponse bias. Furthermore, even when the paper was cited, 49 of the 50 studies that we examined reported its findings improperly. The inappropriate use of statistical-significance testing led researchers to conclude that nonresponse bias was not present in 76 percent of the studies in our sample. Only one of the studies in the sample made any adjustment for it. Judging from the original paper, we estimate that the study researchers should have predicted nonresponse bias and adjusted for 148 variables. In this case, the faulty citations seem to have arisen either because the authors did not read the original paper or because they did not fully understand its implications. To address the problem of omissions, we recommend that journals include a section on their websites to list all relevant papers that have been overlooked and show how the omitted paper relates to the published paper. In general, authors should routinely verify the accuracy of their sources by reading the cited papers. For substantive findings, they should attempt to contact the authors for confirmation or clarification of the results and methods. This would also provide them with the opportunity to enquire about other relevant references. Journal editors should require that authors sign statements that they have read the cited papers and, when appropriate, have attempted to verify the citations. The prevalence of faulty citations impedes the growth of scientific knowledge. Faulty citations include omissions of relevant papers, incorrect references, and quotation errors that misreport findings. We discuss key studies in these areas. We then examine citations to "Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys," one of the most frequently cited papers from the Journal of Marketing Research, to illustrate these issues. This paper is especially useful in testing for quotation errors because it provides specific operational recommendations on adjusting for nonresponse bias; therefore, it allows us to determine whether the citing papers properly used the findings. By any number of measures, those doing survey research fail to cite this paper and, presumably, make inadequate adjustments for nonresponse bias. Furthermore, even when the paper was cited, 49 of th...

show abstract

Referencing and quotation accuracy in four manual therapy journals

Cited by 52 publications

References 16 publications

One in four citations in marine biology papers is inappropriate

One in four citations in marine biology papers is inappropriate

Etikk i forskning og fagutvikling

The Ombudsman: Verification of Citations: Fawlty Towers of Knowledge?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About