Reference accuracy in the general surgery literature

Presentation and publication skills: Publication governance and pitfalls to avoid

There are several pitfalls in the publication process that researchers can fall victim to, and these can occur knowingly or unknowingly. Although some of these errors may have occurred in good faith, disregard of publication governance is a dangerous practice and could bring authors and their co-authors into disrepute. We highlight some of these potential pitfalls, acquaint the reader with some rules that need to be adhered to in research and publishing, and help the reader learn how to avoid tripping-up on the road to publication.

Reference Accuracy in Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport: A 30-Year Follow-Up to Stull et al. (1991)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the reference accuracy of articles from a random sample of issues from 1999, 2009, and 2019 of Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport (RQES). Methods: Up to two issues each of RQES published in 1999, 2009, and 2019 were randomly sampled, and references for articles were verified for accuracy. A total of 1,341 references from 50 articles were verified: 1999 (439 references), 2009 (396 references), and 2019 (506 references). Results: The overall error rate was 40% across the three years (i.e., number of references with at least one error divided by the total number of references and multiplied by 100). Chi-square analyses indicated no significant differences between years for the overall error rate (p > .05): 44% (1999), 38% (2009), and 39% (2019). Chi-square analyses indicated significant differences between years for at least one reference with an error related to author(s) names (p > .05). Chi-square analyses indicated significant differences between years for at least one reference with an error related to the article title. Conclusions: In the author's opinion, an overall error rate of 40% across the three years for RQES is simply too high. Ultimately, it is authors' responsibility to ensure reference accuracy. However, given the unacceptable error rates across fields of study, journals, and publication years, it may be prudent to explore supplemental options to increase reference accuracy in peer-reviewed articles. Reference accuracy is an important issue for authors, editorial offices of journals, and the scientific community.

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

BACKGROUND

Accurate citation practices are key to furthering knowledge in an efficient and valid manner. The aim of this study is to investigate the prevalence of citation inaccuracies in original research from the top-ranked surgical journals and to evaluate the impact level of evidence has on citation inaccuracy.

METHODS

A retrospective study evaluating the citation accuracy of the top 10 ranked surgical journals using the SJCR indicators. For each year between 2015 and 2020, the top 10 cited studies were selected, totaling 60 studies from each journal. From each individual study, 10 citations were randomly selected and evaluated for accuracy. Categories of inaccuracy included fact not found, study not found, contradictory conclusion, citation of a citation, and inaccurate population.

RESULTS

A total of 5973 citations were evaluated for accuracy. Of all the citations analyzed, 15.2% of them had an inaccuracy. There was no statistically significant difference in citations inaccuracy rates among the years studied (P = .38) or study level of evidence (P = .21). Annals of Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Annals of Surgical Oncology had significantly more citation inaccuracies than other journals evaluated (P < .05). JAMA Surgery, The Journal of Endovascular Therapy and The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery had significantly fewer citation inaccuracies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although 84.8% of citations from 2015-2020 were determined to be accurate, citation inaccuracies continue to be prevalent throughout highly-ranked surgical literature. There were no significant differences identified in citation inaccuracy rates between the years evaluated or based on study level of evidence.

Citing literature in biomedical research

Even though it is considered to be the least demanding part while writing a paper, significant attention should be devoted to citing literature. By using citation, original authors are acknowledged, readers are directed to the used material, validity of the used sources is confirmed, evidence of current research is provided, and plagiarism is avoided. Numerous shortcomings in the citation of scientific literature have been recognized in recent times. Results of a recent meta-analysis showed that 25.4% of published scientific papers consisted of citation errors. The academic community encounters the problems of incorrect citations on a daily basis, and assessing the accuracy of citations requires considerable effort. Most researchers are aware of the presence of various citation errors, but few respect their presence, i.e., the consequences of the identified problem. Assessing the presence and type of inaccurate citations in the biomedical scientific literature, as well as identifying factors associated with their presence, is important for preserving the integrity of the academic community. To improve citation accuracy in the biomedical scientific literature, recommendations for authors, mentors, readers and editors should be implemented in academic environment. These recommendations would encourage good citation practice, prevent errors and promote progress throughout the scientific community.

Quotation Accuracy of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols on Acupuncture

Currently, published systematic review protocols (SR protocols) have increasingly become a new trend in fields such as acupuncture and are therefore a new source of quotations in these fields. Systematic reviews are considered the pinnacle of the evidence pyramid as they embody comprehensive literature searching. Quotations are key elements to achieve this goal as they can support the assertions of the original authors, but the ‘misquotation’ exists, too, and they can be misleading to the reader. The aim of this study was to examine the quotation accuracy of SR protocols in a meta-analysis on acupuncture research. We searched SCOPUS through 31 December, 2020, and each protocol and its citations were analyzed and classified as correct or incorrect. We used descriptive statistics to report the quotation errors and characteristics of the included protocols. The results showed 248 SR protocols, where 124 protocols received quotations and 38 quotations (31.4%) were erroneous. Only 11 (4.4%) of the published SRs and SR protocols had been published previously. Furthermore, the scientific journal in which the most SR protocols were published was Medicine (193; 77.8%), followed by BMJ Open (39; 15.7%). Authors from China (86.5%) were the most productive in publishing SRs and SR protocols. Finally, we concluded that the number of SR protocols and meta-analyses published in scientific journals and indexed by databases exceeds the publication capacity of the SRs associated with them, generating scientific literature that does not make any novel contribution to knowledge.

How accurate are citations of frequently cited papers in biomedical literature?

Citations are an important, but often overlooked, part of every scientific paper. They allow the reader to trace the flow of evidence, serving as a gateway to relevant literature. Most scientists are aware of citations' errors, but few appreciate the prevalence of these problems. The purpose of the present study was to examine how often frequently cited papers in biomedical scientific literature are cited inaccurately. The study included an active participation of the first authors of included papers; to first-hand verify the citations accuracy. Findings from feasibility study, where we reviewed 1540 articles containing 2526 citations of 14 most cited articles in which the authors were affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine University of Belgrade, were further evaluated for external confirmation in an independent verification set of articles. Verification set included 4912 citations identified in 2995 articles that cited 13 most cited articles published by authors affiliated with the Mayo Clinic Division of Nephrology and Hypertension. A citation was defined as being accurate if the cited article supported or was in accordance with the statement by citing authors. At least one inaccurate citation was found in 11 and 15% of articles in the feasibility study and verification set, respectively, suggesting that inaccurate citations are common in biomedical literature. The most common problem was the citation of nonexistent findings (38.4%), followed by an incorrect interpretation of findings (15.4%). One-fifth of inaccurate citations were due to chains of inaccurate citations. Based on these findings, several actions to reduce citation inaccuracies have been proposed.

How accurate is the neurosurgery literature? A review of references

BACKGROUND

The reference list is an important part of academic manuscripts. The goal of this study is to evaluate the reference accuracy in the field of neurosurgery.

METHODS

This study examines four major peer-reviewed neurosurgery journals, chosen based on their clinical impact factor: Neurosurgery, J Neurosurg, World Neurosurg, and Acta Neurochir. For each of the four journals, five articles from each of the journal's 12 issues published in 2019 were randomly selected using an online generator. This resulted in a total of 240 articles, 60 from each journal. Additionally, from each article's list of references, one reference was again randomly selected and checked for a citation or quotation error. The chi-square test was used to analyze the association between the occurrence of citation and quotation errors and the presence of hypothesized risk factors that could impact reference accuracy.

RESULTS

62.1% of articles had a minor citation error, 8.33% had a major citation error, 12.1% had a minor quotation error, and 5.8% of articles had a major quotation error. Overall, Acta Neurochir presented with the fewest quotation errors compared with the other journals evaluated. The only association between the frequency of errors and potential markers of reference mistakes was with the length of the bibliography. Surprisingly, this correlation indicated that the articles with longer reference lists had fewer citation errors (p < 0.01). Statistical significance was found between the occurrence of citation errors and the journals of publication (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In order to advance medical treatment and patient care in neurosurgery, detailed documentation and attention to detail are necessary. The results from this analysis illustrate that improved reference accuracy is required.

Reference accuracy in spine surgery

OBJECTIVE

The references list is an important part of a scientific article that serves to confirm the accuracy of the authors' statements. The goal of this study was to evaluate the reference accuracy in the field of spine surgery.

METHODS

Four major peer-reviewed spine surgery journals were chosen for this study based on their subspecialty clinical impact factors. Sixty articles per journal were selected from 12 issues each of The Spine Journal, Spine, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, and 40 articles were selected from 8 issues of Global Spine Journal, for a total of 220 articles. All the articles were published in 2019 and were selected using computer-generated numbers. From the references list of each article, one reference was again selected by using a computer-generated number and then checked for citation or quotation errors.

RESULTS

The results indicate that 84.1% of articles have a minor citation error, 4.5% of articles have a major citation error, 9.5% of articles have a minor quotation error, and 9.1% of articles have a major quotation error. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine had the fewest citation errors compared with the other journals evaluated in this study. Using chi-square analysis, no association was determined between the occurrence of errors and potential markers of reference mistakes. Still, statistical significance was found between the occurrence of citation errors and the spine journals tested.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to advance medical treatment and patient care in spine surgery, detailed documentation and attention to detail are necessary. The results from this study illustrate that improved reference accuracy is required.

Accuracy of cited "facts" in medical research articles: A review of study methodology and recalculation of quotation error rate

Previous reviews estimated that approximately 20 to 25% of assertions cited from original research articles, or "facts," are inaccurately quoted in the medical literature. These reviews noted that the original studies were dissimilar and only began to compare the methods of the original studies. The aim of this review is to examine the methods of the original studies and provide a more specific rate of incorrectly cited assertions, or quotation errors, in original research articles published in medical journals. Additionally, the estimate of quotation errors calculated here is based on the ratio of quotation errors to quotations examined (a percent) rather than the more prevalent and weighted metric of quotation errors to the references selected. Overall, this resulted in a lower estimate of the quotation error rate in original medical research articles. A total of 15 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the primary quantitative analysis. Quotation errors were divided into two categories: content ("factual") or source (improper indirect citation) errors. Content errors were further subdivided into major and minor errors depending on the degree that the assertion differed from the original source. The rate of quotation errors recalculated here is 14.5% (10.5% to 18.6% at a 95% confidence interval). These content errors are predominantly, 64.8% (56.1% to 73.5% at a 95% confidence interval), major errors or cited assertions in which the referenced source either fails to substantiate, is unrelated to, or contradicts the assertion. Minor errors, which are an oversimplification, overgeneralization, or trivial inaccuracies, are 35.2% (26.5% to 43.9% at a 95% confidence interval). Additionally, improper secondary (or indirect) citations, which are distinguished from calculations of quotation accuracy, occur at a rate of 10.4% (3.4% to 17.5% at a 95% confidence interval).

Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews

As the size of the published scientific literature has increased exponentially over the past 30 years, review articles play an increasingly important role in helping researchers to make sense of original research results. Literature reviews can be broadly classified as either “systematic” or “narrative”. Narrative reviews may be broader in scope than systematic reviews, but have been criticised for lacking synthesis and rigour. The submission of more scientific manuscripts requires more researchers acting as peer reviewers, which requires adding greater numbers of new reviewers to the reviewing population over time. However, whereas there are many easily accessible guides for reviewers of primary research manuscripts, there are few similar resources to assist reviewers of narrative reviews. Here, I summarise why literature reviews are valued by their diverse readership and how peer reviewers with different levels of content expertise can improve the reliability and accessibility of narrative review articles. I then provide a number of recommendations for peer reviewers of narrative literature reviews, to improve the integrity of the scientific literature, while also ensuring that narrative review articles meet the needs of both expert and non-expert readers.

A modern, simplified citation style and student response

Purpose

– The purpose of this paper is to see if there is a need for and an interest in a modernized and simplified citation style (SCS).

Design/methodology/approach

– Students in two sections of English 1010 were given a brief training in SCS and asked to use SCS and MLA citation styles, respectively, in their next two assignments. Students were surveyed afterwards about their preferences.

Findings

– Students preferred using the presented SCS over MLA by a large margin. This was not a surprise. Citation styles are difficult to master.

Research limitations/implications

– This is a small qualitative study, and the result are not generalizable to a larger population, but the implications suggest that a larger study is warranted.

Practical implications

– This paper shows that there is a need for a more modern citation style, one that embraces technology and moves forward from the print bibliographic tradition.

Originality/value

– There are many articles in the literature about citations, but few address modernizing and simplifying citation styles, and none make a proposal for such a style.

Quotation accuracy in medical journal articles-a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background. Quotations and references are an indispensable element of scientific communication. They should support what authors claim or provide important background information for readers. Studies indicate, however, that quotations not serving their purpose-quotation errors-may be prevalent. Methods. We carried out a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of quotation errors, taking account of differences between studies in error ascertainment. Results. Out of 559 studies screened we included 28 in the main analysis, and estimated major, minor and total quotation error rates of 11,9%, 95% CI [8.4, 16.6] 11.5% [8.3, 15.7], and 25.4% [19.5, 32.4]. While heterogeneity was substantial, even the lowest estimate of total quotation errors was considerable (6.7%). Indirect references accounted for less than one sixth of all quotation problems. The findings remained robust in a number of sensitivity and subgroup analyses (including risk of bias analysis) and in meta-regression. There was no indication of publication bias. Conclusions. Readers of medical journal articles should be aware of the fact that quotation errors are common. Measures against quotation errors include spot checks by editors and reviewers, correct placement of citations in the text, and declarations by authors that they have checked cited material. Future research should elucidate if and to what degree quotation errors are detrimental to scientific progress.

Effectiveness of a reference accuracy strategy for peer-reviewed journal articles

Dissemination of information through peer-reviewed journal articles is an important requirement of success in academia. Despite the importance of publishing articles, about 25% to 45% of articles published in nursing journals have at least 1 reference error in the reference list. The authors discuss the implementation and outcomes of an internal copyeditor strategy aimed at reducing reference inaccuracy in faculty-authored journal articles.