Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals

Wager, Elizabeth; Middleton, Philippa

doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000002.pub3

Cited by 48 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…24.2%, falls within the range reported for medical and health science disciplines (Table 2) although the various studies used an array of methods and categories. A summary of the research on citation malpractice in medicine calculated that, from a total of 3836 citations checked, a median of 20% were 'inaccurate' (Wager & Middleton 2008). Our counts, however, are likely to be underestimates as we only examined single citations and predict more errors will occur when assertions are supported by a string of references.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

One in four citations in marine biology papers is inappropriate

Todd¹,

Guest²,

Lu³

et al. 2010

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citing sources that do not support the assertion being made can misinform readers, perpetuate mistakes and deny credit to the researchers who should have been acknowledged. To quantify citation fidelity in marine biology, we retrieved 198 papers from 2 recent issues of 33 marine biology journals. From each paper we randomly selected 1 citation, recovered the source material, and evaluated its appropriateness. We discovered that the assertion was 'clearly supported' by the citation in only 75.8% of cases, the support was 'ambiguous' in 10.6% of cases and the citation offered 'no support' to the original statement in 6.0% of cases. The remaining 7.6% of cases were classified as 'empty' (citations to secondary sources). We found no relationship between citation appropriateness and the position of the assertion in the paper, number of authors, number of references, article length and Journal Impact Factor. That 1 in 4 citations in marine biology should be viewed with scepticism is alarming and has important ramifications for both scholarship and bibliometrics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

One in four citations in marine biology papers is inappropriate

Todd¹,

Guest²,

Lu³

et al. 2010

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…-31 16 13 1 -2 -ERJ 67,340 100 12 7 3 22 6 11 -2 1 -T 38,905 100 14 7 3 24 12 6 -1 2 -R 17,705 100 17 7 2 26 16 7 --1 2 sultants in the editorial offices [2,4,9] , limitations of the number of references [2,4,9,10] , or adopting a uniform system of citation for all journals in a given field, thereby creating a standard by which citations could be compared electronically against a scrupulously accurate database [2,9] . Additionally, technical editing may therefore improve the accuracy of citations [2,6] . All of these suggestions have the potential to further decrease the frequency of errors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reference Accuracy in Four Respiratory Medical Journals

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Trials on open peer review have shown mixed results on the impact on quality of review, with one study demonstrating improved quality (19). In some studies, it has been shown that intensive editorial review may correlate to fewer errors in abstracts and references, whereas providing author's instructions may correlate to fewer errors in references and improved reporting of ethics requirements (20). Methodological review of research articles may be expected to improve the quality of published articles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A retrospective analysis of reported errata in five leading medical journals in 2012

Bhatt

Aryal

Panta

et al. 2014

Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAlthough medical publications are frequently used as the source of information, the prevalence of errata remains unclear. The objective of this study was to examine peer-review and publication processes of medical journals as well as to determine the occurrence of reported errata in medical journals and timeliness in identifying and correcting errata.MethodsFive medical journals, New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of American Medical Association, and Lancet, were evaluated. The characteristics of these journals were obtained from editors’ survey. All these journals report errata noted in their prior publications. We retrospectively analyzed all errata reported from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2012. The mean number of reported errata per issue, the most common errata, and the mean time to report errata were calculated.ResultsThe journals had high impact factors (14–51), received 3,200 to more than 15,000 submissions in 2012, and utilized two or more external reviewers and usually two or more editors for any accepted articles. All the journals edited the accepted articles, including references, figures, and tables for style. A mean of 1.3 articles with ≥1 errata was reported per issue (a total of 306 articles with errata in 226 issues). Errata in author's information, numeric errata, and errata in the figures and tables were the most common errata. The mean time to report the errata was 122 days.ConclusionThe high-impact journals, with extensive pre-publication review, reported relatively few errata per issue. The delay in reporting errata needs further exploration.

show abstract

Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals

Cited by 48 publications

References 92 publications

One in four citations in marine biology papers is inappropriate

One in four citations in marine biology papers is inappropriate

Reference Accuracy in Four Respiratory Medical Journals

A retrospective analysis of reported errata in five leading medical journals in 2012

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About