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

Abstract

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 this study was to examine how often frequently cited papers in biomedical scientific literature are cited inaccurately. The study included an active participation of first authors of included papers; to first-hand verify the citations accuracy. Findings from feasibility study, where we reviewed 1,540 articles containing 2,526 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 4,912 citations identified in 2,995 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.

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

“…Studies assessing citation inaccuracies often investigated journals from specific subspecialties, perhaps explaining the wide variation in inaccuracy rates identified previously. A study by Choi et al 9 that assessed citation inaccuracies in 3 different surgical journals identified a similar inaccuracy rate of 9% to the 15.2% rate in this study, supporting this explanation. The findings from the current study are likely a more accurate representation of overall inaccuracy rates than studies that assessed journals from specific surgical specialties, because this study investigated 10 different journals, encompassing a wide range of 14 different surgical and medical specialties.…”

Is the future of peer review automated?

“…Traditional peer review often fails to address widely accepted, but suboptimal, research practices and guideline details. Examples include incomplete reporting of criteria to assess risk of bias [ 6 ], ambiguous or incorrect citations [ 29 ], lack of open data or code [ 30 ], incorrect statistical calculations [ 31 ], and underreporting of ethics [ 32 ], sex as a biological variable [ 33 ], and limitations statements [ 34 ]. Whereas traditional peer review requires time and effort [ 35 ], tools can quickly screen many papers and provide individualized feedback on some of the items included in transparency and reporting guidelines.…”

An Author’s Guide to Mastering Research Communication Skills: Introduction of a Medical Manuscript

“…Representative and relevant references are important to substantiate the information and viewpoints of the authors [40]. Irrelevant or inaccurate reference interpretations can undermine the credibility of the research problem.…”

“…a) irrelevance, discordance or contradictions between conclusions or interpretations made by the citing authors and those made by the cited reference, b) indirect referencing i.e. references that are not cited from the primary source, c) methodologically flawed references even if they are relevant to the authors' research point and d) references with obsolete information (surpassed by more recent and credible studies) even if methodologically robust [39,40]. However, methodologically flawed and obsolete references may be used to showcase the limited evidence for the research point studied.…”