Citation Errors in Scientific Research and Publications: Causes, Consequences, and Remedies

INTRODUCTION

Scientific research depends on the gathering of existing knowledge by collecting data from previous research and then building upon the collected data to design new research projects with the goal of answering unanswered scientific questions [1]. Therefore, proper citation of previously published studies is an essential and integral part of conducting medical research. Citations are used to establish the current state of knowledge in the subject being studied, identify gaps in the literature, and explain and debate the results of ongoing research [1]. This process requires proper identification and validation of the integrity of citations. Although it is recommended that the entire research paper is fully reviewed before being cited [2,3], it is a common experience that this is often not done, and it is reported that up to 80% of authors omit to read the full text of the research paper they are citing [3]. This omission can perpetuate significant errors within an article in the literature and mislead the research being reported [4,5].

Recently, there has been heightened focus on research ethics to detect fraudulent research [6], and many research oversight bodies have been founded and several guidelines have been published. These bodies include the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Most of these guidelines have been adopted by scientific journals and are stated as prerequisites for accepting manuscripts for publication [7]. However, although some authors have discussed citation errors in scientific publications [5,7,8], there are no guidelines or tools available to rectify these errors.

The Global Andrology Forum (GAF) is an online global research group which has published extensively on andrological topics [9]. It is a standard practice in the GAF to perform an intensive internal review of all citations in our manuscripts before submission to the journals. Recently, while internally reviewing one of our manuscripts being prepared for submission, the GAF reviewers identified errors in approximately 20% of citations. The manuscript had 145 references that were cited 172 times in the text. The most common error was incorrect citation information (n=9), followed by unjustified extrapolation of the conclusion of the cited work (n=6), factual errors (n=5), incorrect interpretation of results (n=5), citing a secondary source (n=4), citing a wrong reference (n=2), ignoring more suitable reference (n=2), and citing an unreliable source (n=1). The extent and importance of the problem of citation errors became evident to us, prompting us to highlight the need for routine review and audit of all citations, using the full-text of cited papers rather than their abstracts, before a manuscript is approved for submission for publication.

COMMON REASONS WHY AUTHORS FAIL TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE PAPER BEFORE CITATION

Though it is recommended that the primary or original article be thoroughly reviewed before it is cited, a common experience is that this is often not done. In fact, it has been estimated that only 20% of authors read the original paper that is being cited [4]. This practice of omitting the primary source and relying on secondary sources can result in negative consequences with misinterpretation of the cited information or unjustified extrapolation of conclusions, leading to the perpetuation and propagation of significant errors and potential misinformation [5,10]. We hereby highlight some of the common reasons why many authors do not read the entire full text of a paper before citing it.

Author-related factors

• - Too much time and effort are required to check the full paper for each citation.

• - Authors underestimate the importance of best citation practice.

• - Authors think that citations in the introduction section are not important and hence approach them casually.

• - Junior authors may make faulty citations that are not detected and corrected by senior authors.

• - Authors may be biased toward papers from colleagues, mentors, or well-known authors, and thus ignore more appropriate papers from other authors.

• - Selection bias, where newer sources are ignored, and older popular references are repeatedly cited.

• - “Citation Metrics” influence, where authors are more concerned about the “number” of their publications rather than their quality.

• - Self-citation (e.g., citing irrelevant previous self-publication).

• - Unnecessarily redundant citations (needlessly including several references for the same information).

• - Intentional or unintentional distortion of the cited findings or conclusions to support or endorse the authors’ findings or conclusions.

2. Article-related factors

• - The full text of a paper is inaccessible.

• - The abstract is thought to be sufficient for the cited findings/interpretation.

• - Relying on familiar articles or narrative reviews and their reference lists and neglecting unfamiliar more recent sources.

• - The secondary source is thought to be reliable enough.

3. Journal-related factors

• - Influence of journal editors or reviewers, suggesting specific citations.

• - Authors may try to satisfy a journal editor by including more citations from the target journal.

• - Authors rely on the publishing journal to correct the style and accuracy of references. Journals usually review the reference style but with no verification of information.

4. Guidelines-related factors

• - Lack of (or scarce) clear guidelines on “Best Citation Practice.”

• - Lack of training in “Best Citation Practices”, while extensive training and guidance are provided for “Literature Search and Data Extraction.”

• - Lack of automated software to help authors, reviewers, and journals to check citation accuracy.

COMMON CITATION ERRORS AND THEIR PROPOSED REMEDIES

Several types of citation errors may be encountered during the citation process. Here we discuss the different categories of common citation errors and provide their proposed remedies.

1. Non-citing error

Often, a paper makes a general claim but omits to provide a supporting citation. This error may be because the authors are very familiar with the subject and thus a statement is taken for granted as generally known or accepted knowledge. Alternatively, it may be a case of simple oversight on the authors’ part.

These types of errors can be overcome by carefully reviewing the manuscript and ensuring that all claims, whether they are major or minor, are supported by at least one appropriate citation.

2. Factual error

This type of error may be an incorrect description of the findings of a paper, such as the mechanism of action that was elucidated or a function of a molecule, cell, or organ that was postulated. Alternatively, it can be a numerical error, such as incorrectly citing the prevalence of a condition or a disease. Another related error is an incorrect interpretation arising from an unjustified extrapolation of a paper’s conclusion.

These error types can be overcome by careful reading and analysis of the full text of the article.

3. Selective citation

This type of error appears to have many mistake subtypes. For example, authors may cite their own papers or those of their close colleagues over others because they are more familiar with these studies. Another error is ignoring more suitable citations, such as more recent papers, due to a lack of updated knowledge on the subject. Authors may select smaller studies over more extensive studies because they fit the author’s hypothesis better.

These types of errors can be overcome by systematic literature review and searching the literature using objective means such as word searches of paper databases [11].

4. Incorrect source type

It is common to find citations of secondary literature such as reviews and books without citing the primary research paper that reported the original finding.

This error can be overcome by citing the review paper (to demonstrate that the original idea got accepted) alongside the original source.

5. Insufficient support

As research on a particular area evolves, some old information falls out of favor, and some become more popular.

It is, therefore, vital to substantiate claims by citing, along with the original paper, recent research, and review papers, to indicate the author’s claim has general support.

6. Wrong citation

This type of error occurs when a wrong reference is added to the cited information.

This type of error can be overcome by carefully reviewing the full text article to ensure that all cited information are supported by the appropriate reference.

7. Incorrect technical details

This type of error involves inaccurate details of author names, journal names, dates, and page numbers of the cited paper.

These errors can be easily overcome by systematically organizing all paper citations and using automated reference management software packages such as: EndNote, RefWorks, Zotero, and others.

BEST PRACTICES FOR CITATIONS

Below are everyday situations requiring citations when writing original research, review, or editorial papers. Each situation is described as a pairing of Purpose and Practice. More technical guidelines for proper citation can be found in the book, “Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th edition, 2020) – the official guide to the APA Style” [12].

• Purpose: Making a factual claim in a paper.

• Practice: Every factual claim must be supported by a citation.

• This point may sound trivial, but it is common to see papers making specific claims and not substantiating them with references.

• Purpose: Citing a specific paper to support a claim.

• Practice: Download the cited paper and mark the relevant section in the paper. Have the marked paper available for your co-authors to validate the accuracy of the citation and ask them to validate each source independently.

• Purpose: Citing a scientific discovery.

• Practice: Cite the original paper that made the discovery. Also, cite additional papers showing that the finding is reproducible. If the papers were written more than ten years ago, cite a recent review to demonstrate the discovery is still relevant and accepted in the scientific community.

• Purpose: Citing an original research paper versus citing a review paper.

• Practice: Citing the original paper (primary source) is the best practice. An original research paper is cited using a simple citation that does not require an explanation. However, citing a review paper (secondary source) needs disclosure of the fact that a review paper is being cited. For example, you can cite “(Smith et al., 1970).” Alternatively, if you cannot find the primary source, you need to identify the primary source in this way “(Smith et al., 1970, as cited in Cohen et al., 2020).”

• Purpose: Citing a numerical value such as the percentage of couples with infertility.

• Practice: Cite several of the most recent original papers to provide a range of numbers or an average. Include information on the study’s size, location, and timing so the audience can assess the quality of the studies.

• Purpose: Citing an original research paper finding while disagreeing with the original interpretation.

• Practice: Cite the specific paper and indicate the figure or table containing the controversial data. For example, you can cite “(Smith et al., 1970, Fig 1).” Indicate clearly what is the original interpretation of the data and what your interpretation is.

• Purpose: Expressing an opinion based on a claim in a paper.

• Practice: Clearly indicate that the opinion you express is your own, and then cite the paper.

• Purpose: Citing an interpretation or opinion of a claim in a paper.

• Practice: Clearly indicate this is an interpretation or opinion based on a published claim, and then cite the paper you are referring to.

DISCUSSION

While writing multi-author papers, we have repeatedly observed citation errors, including a large proportion of authors who tend to cite references merely based on abstracts found during a quick PubMed search. Another common erroneous citation practice is to blindly trust the information referenced by other authors in secondary sources and simply accept and adopt the information in their articles, without checking the original primary source.

These practices, and the other errors listed previously, can lead to incorrect and misleading citations. Abstracts often do not paint the complete picture and may lack adequate information to judge the validity of the citation. Furthermore, citations in secondary sources might be incorrect because the authors may have: (1) made an incorrect interpretation of the cited article as they did not read the entire original article; (2) cited a wrong article in support of their claim; (3) drawn an inaccurate conclusion from the cited article; and/or (4) presented a biased view of someone’s research or opinions and they narrate it inaccurately to serve their purpose or point of view. Importantly, repeated rewording and reiteration in secondary sources (repeated paraphrasing) can eventually result in distortion of the original information – which is very similar to the broken telephone game or transmission chain experiments.

All the citation errors discussed here can lead to the proliferation of inaccuracies and half-truths, or even completely false information, in the scientific literature. These inaccuracies and errors, even though largely unintentional, harm the sanctity of scientific literature. We must reject the notion that these are just minor errors, harmless to a paper’s main message, and therefore they do not matter and need not be pursued. No error is too small to bother, and there should be no room for error in any aspect of the work required to build an article of the highest quality and reliability.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• - It is essential to seek access to a full paper and review it carefully before citing it.

• - In cases when access to an entire article is unavailable for any reason, relying on a mere abstract is not the best practice. In all such circumstances, the ideal option is to find the full article by requesting it through an institutional inter-library loan, or requesting it from the author, or asking a colleague who has access to the necessary resources.

• - If an article of interest is in a language other than English, the author should not exclude it automatically. The author should seek help translating the article so it can be read carefully to judge if is suitable as a reference.

• - It is important not to exclude articles from the search string without making all necessary attempts to find and read them. This process may be laborious and may delay the manuscript’s writing by few days or even weeks, but, in the end, having reviewed and cited all important information published shows the thoroughness of the literature review, which raises the quality of reported findings.

• - A policy of verification of citations by another author is also critical. An experienced senior author should adjudicate any conflicting results at this stage.

• - There is a need to develop clear and specific guidelines on “Best Citation Practices” and to train researchers to follow them correctly and to understand the implications of citation errors in a larger context.

CONCLUSIONS

Good research requires a lot of hard work, patience, determination, and accuracy. We cannot have a high-quality paper if the foundation of our arguments is contaminated with unverified or inaccurate information. Authors should not rely on abstracts or secondary sources for citations. Clear guidelines dedicated to “Best Citation Practices” are needed to improve the accuracy and quality of scientific literature.