The accuracy of citation and quotation in otolaryngology/head and neck surgery journals

Abstract

A high rate of errors of citation and quotation has been reported in the publications of many medical specialties. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of citation and quotation errors in otolaryngology/head and neck surgery journals. A retrospective analysis was performed based on the first issue for 1997 of each of four journals: Laryngoscope; Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology; Clinical Otolaryngyology; and Journal of Laryngology and Otology. A sample of 50 references from each journal was randomly selected and each was checked for accuracy against the original referenced paper. Citation errors were categorized as major, intermediate or minor and quotation errors as major or minor. Citation errors occurred in 37.5% of the references, 11.9% of which were considered major errors. Quotation errors occurred in 17%, with 11.1% major errors. This prevalence is similar to the established error rate in medical literature.

Accuracy of References in Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery

“…Goldberg et al [11] study found an error rate of 27.5% in a random sample citations from three major American emergency medicine journals. An otolaryngology/head and neck surgery citation error rate of 37.5% was seen in study done by Fenton et al [9]. Our recent study regarding accuracy of references in Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery revealed that 30.9% were inaccurate.…”

“…Major mistakes are the most important as they make access to the reference difficult [8]. Minor errors might be considered as a sign of disrespect or lack of courtesy to the author or authors, and may impact negatively on their academic records by excluding the name from the citation index [9]. It has been suggested that carelessness and misuse of language, oversimplification of results, information gleaned from a book chapter or from an on-line abstract and not reading the original source are some reasons for the high error rate [10].…”

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

“…Schulmeister (1998) found 12 out of 180 nursing articles examined contained major quotation errors. In another medical specialization, Fenton et al (2000) found quotation errors for 17 percent of references including major quotation errors for 11 percent of references. Wager and Middleton (2003), in a systematic review of medical journals, concluded that 20 percent of the quotations were incorrect.…”

“…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.…”

Giving Credit: How Well Do Librarians Cite and Quote Their Sources?

“…For example, Fenton studied four otolaryngology journals and found "the higher the impact factor for the journal, the lower the number of errors detected in its papers." 9 29 This resulted in sample sizes of 202 for C&RL, 143 for LRTS and 127 for RUSQ. We then used a random sequence generator to select the sample citations.…”