Citation and quotation accuracy in three anatomy journals

Abstract

Citation and quotation errors are common in medical journals. We assessed the prevalence of those errors in gross anatomy journals, where articles often cite old anatomical studies. The study included 199 randomly selected references from articles published in the first 2001 issue of three major gross anatomy journals: Annals of Anatomy, Clinical Anatomy, and Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy. The selected references were checked for accuracy against the original articles. Citation errors were classified as major, intermediate, and minor. Quotation errors were classified as major and minor. Citations errors were found in 27% (54/199) of the references and 38% of them were major errors. Errors occurred in 19% (52/272) of quotations and nearly all (94%) were major. Furthermore, 24% of the quotations were indirect references to a secondary, instead of original, source. There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of citation or quotation errors between the references published before or after the introduction of MEDLINE (chi2 test, P > 0.05) in 1963, and the prevalence of these errors in gross anatomy journals was similar to that found in other medical fields. A high proportion of major citation errors, a very high proportion of major quotation errors, and the substantial number of indirect quotations call for serious editorial action in anatomy journals.

Taking the “in‐” out of inaccuracy

“…The article by Lukić et al (2004) not only heightens our awareness of the extent of this problem, but it also paves the way for additional initiatives and provides a road map to assess the impact of change. Subsequent studies similar to this one, carried out after a change is instituted, may help us determine the effect of such strategies and guide us in future changes.…”

“…The article by Lukić et al (2004) in this issue of Clinical Anatomy calls our attention to the citation and quotation (in)accuracy in anatomic journals. This important article serves as a reminder to each of us of the inherent ethical responsibilities we all have in publishing scholarly works.…”

“…In their article, Lukić et al (2004) report a relatively high prevalence of errors in major citations and quotations, and errors related to indirect references involving a secondary source, from their review of articles published in 2001. Surprisingly, there was no significant difference in the rates of errors in older articles (predating the introduction of MEDLINE) and those published subsequently; both of us, along with the authors, would have predicted a higher rate in older sources, frequently cited in the anatomy literature.…”

“…As Lukić et al (2004) emphasize, accuracy must be a priority. But who is ultimately responsible for this?…”

“…Exactly what should we do at Clinical Anatomy? In view of this article by Lukić et al (2004), we will not only adhere to our previous policy (see Instructions to Authors for details) but also institute an additional measure. Title pages in hardcopy form will be required to be submitted at the time of final revisions along with glossy prints of images.…”