Pass It On: Errors in Direct Quotes in a Sample of Scholarly Journal Articles

Abstract

Concern has been expressed in the literature over inaccuracies both in reference listings and direct quotes. This study examined one volume year of each of four journals in the social sciences to compare 1,278 quotes against the original sources. Of this total, 89 could not be found and 519 (43.7% of the remaining quotes) had one or more inaccuracies, ranging from trivial punctuation differences to errors that significantly changed the content meaning. Implications as well as suggestions for editors and writers for reducing errors are discussed.T he children sit all in a row. The first child leans over and, as fast as possible, whispers something in the ear of the next child, and then says, "Pass it on!" The second child leans over and, as fast as possible, whispers what 'he or she thinks the message is to the next child, ending with "Pass it on!" The sequence continues until the last child announces the message, and all the children dissolve into giggles over the changes the message has undergone. As young as they are, veteran players know that the longer the line and the faster the whispers, the more chances the message has of becoming garbled, and the funnier the game becomes.The hilarity of the game does not carry over into the realm of research writing, however. The research process requires the researcher to seek out what is already known, synthesize that knowledge, add to it, and "pass it on." No longer, then, are garbled messages the preferred outcome; they are counterproductive, if not destructive.Rules for proper use of direct quotations are included in most researchand writing texts (cf. rules require quotations to be accurate not only in wording, spelling, and internal punctuation but also in meaning and tone. Although the rules may be uniform and ubiquitous, apparently their application is not.De Lacey, Record, and Wade (1985) reported on six medical journals from which they had randomly selected 300 citations and references for verification against the original. They reported errors in 15% of the citations. In response to the de Lacey et al. article, Lowry (1985) reported an even higher error rate (25% inaccurate and another 25% slightly inaccurate) in citations in letters received in one month by the British Medical Journal. A total of 33% of the letters printed in that month by the journal were either slightly inaccurate or inaccurate. Both Glass (1983) and Relman (1983) expressed concern that the letters published by journals were not submitted to the same reviewer scrutiny as were the journal articles. Their concerns were based on the increasing use of letters to present new scientific information rather than to comment on materials already published.

Characteristics of doctoral students who commit citation errors

“…Thus, accurately reporting all tenets of an individual’s study preserves not only the research integrity, but also the integrity of the researcher (Faunce and Job, 2001; Hernon and Metoyer‐Duran, 1992; Spivey and Wilks, 2004). Current literature on this phenomenon addresses research inaccuracies that include citation errors (for example, non‐compliance to the prescribed editorial style), reference omissions, reference falsification, inconsistent references, inaccurate quotations, misspelled names, incorrect page numbers, and even fraudulent research (Boles, 1996; Budd et al , 1998; Faunce and Job, 2001; Fenton et al , 2000; Hernandez and White, 1989; Hernon and Metoyer‐Duran, 1992; Johns and Strand, 2000; Lok et al , 2001; O’Connor, 2002; Oermann et al , 2002; Pandit, 1993; Rice and Stankus, 1983; Sassen, 1992; Spivey and Wilks, 2004; Sweetland, 1989).…”

“…Interestingly, Sassen (1992) adds language problems, multiple author arrangements, and academic pressure to publish as contributing factors. Most of the research on inaccurate bibliographic citations has examined professional refereed journals (Bell and Speer, 1988; Budd et al ., 1998; Faunce and Job, 2001; Hernandez and White, 1989; Hernon and Metoyer‐Duran, 1992; Johns and Strand, 2000; Pandit, 1993; Sassen, 1992; Spivey and Wilks, 2004; Sweetland, 1989). Despite the past interest in studying bibliographic citation errors, those who prepared the reference lists at the end of their research report have not been subject to the same critical study.…”