Background. Quotations and references are an indispensable element of scientific communication. They should support what authors claim or provide important background information for readers. Studies indicate, however, that quotations not serving their purpose-quotation errors-may be prevalent. Methods. We carried out a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of quotation errors, taking account of differences between studies in error ascertainment. Results. Out of 559 studies screened we included 28 in the main analysis, and estimated major, minor and total quotation error rates of 11,9%, 95% CI [8.4, 16.6] 11.5% [8.3, 15.7], and 25.4% [19.5, 32.4]. While heterogeneity was substantial, even the lowest estimate of total quotation errors was considerable (6.7%). Indirect references accounted for less than one sixth of all quotation problems. The findings remained robust in a number of sensitivity and subgroup analyses (including risk of bias analysis) and in meta-regression. There was no indication of publication bias. Conclusions. Readers of medical journal articles should be aware of the fact that quotation errors are common. Measures against quotation errors include spot checks by editors and reviewers, correct placement of citations in the text, and declarations by authors that they have checked cited material. Future research should elucidate if and to what degree quotation errors are detrimental to scientific progress.

Quotation accuracy in medical journal articles—a systematic review and meta-analysis

Citing sources that do not support the assertion being made can misinform readers, per- petuate mistakes and deny credit to the researchers who should have been acknowledged. To quan- tify citation fidelity in marine biology, we retrieved 198 papers from 2 recent issues of 33 marine biol- ogy 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 cita- tion 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 appropriate- ness 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 scep- ticism is alarming and has important ramifications for both scholarship and bibliometrics.

/pdf/one-in-four-citations-in-marine-biology-papers-is-3qz96qir2o.pdf

One in four citations in marine biology papers is inappropriate

Background
Most journals try to improve their articles by technical editing processes such as proof-reading, editing to conform to 'house styles', grammatical conventions and checking accuracy of cited references. Despite the considerable resources devoted to technical editing, we do not know whether it improves the accessibility of biomedical research findings or the utility of articles. This is an update of a Cochrane methodology review first published in 2003.

Objectives
To assess the effects of technical editing on research reports in peer-reviewed biomedical journals, and to assess the level of accuracy of references to these reports.

Search methods
We searched The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2007; MEDLINE (last searched July 2006); EMBASE (last searched June 2007) and checked relevant articles for further references. We also searched the Internet and contacted researchers and experts in the field.

Selection criteria
Prospective or retrospective comparative studies of technical editing processes applied to original research articles in biomedical journals, as well as studies of reference accuracy.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently assessed each study against the selection criteria and assessed the methodological quality of each study. One review author extracted the data, and the second review author repeated this.

Main results
We located 32 studies addressing technical editing and 66 surveys of reference accuracy. Only three of the studies were randomised controlled trials. 

A 'package' of largely unspecified editorial processes applied between acceptance and publication was associated with improved readability in two studies and improved reporting quality in another two studies, while another study showed mixed results after stricter editorial policies were introduced. More intensive editorial processes were associated with fewer errors in abstracts and references. Providing instructions to authors was associated with improved reporting of ethics requirements in one study and fewer errors in references in two studies, but no difference was seen in the quality of abstracts in one randomised controlled trial. Structuring generally improved the quality of abstracts, but increased their length. The reference accuracy studies showed a median citation error rate of 38% and a median quotation error rate of 20%.

Authors' conclusions
Surprisingly few studies have evaluated the effects of technical editing rigorously. However there is some evidence that the 'package' of technical editing used by biomedical journals does improve papers. A substantial number of references in biomedical articles are cited or quoted inaccurately.

Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals

Previous reviews estimated that approximately 20 to 25% of assertions cited from original research articles, or "facts," are inaccurately quoted in the medical literature. These reviews noted that the original studies were dissimilar and only began to compare the methods of the original studies. The aim of this review is to examine the methods of the original studies and provide a more specific rate of incorrectly cited assertions, or quotation errors, in original research articles published in medical journals. Additionally, the estimate of quotation errors calculated here is based on the ratio of quotation errors to quotations examined (a percent) rather than the more prevalent and weighted metric of quotation errors to the references selected. Overall, this resulted in a lower estimate of the quotation error rate in original medical research articles. A total of 15 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the primary quantitative analysis. Quotation errors were divided into two categories: content ("factual") or source (improper indirect citation) errors. Content errors were further subdivided into major and minor errors depending on the degree that the assertion differed from the original source. The rate of quotation errors recalculated here is 14.5% (10.5% to 18.6% at a 95% confidence interval). These content errors are predominantly, 64.8% (56.1% to 73.5% at a 95% confidence interval), major errors or cited assertions in which the referenced source either fails to substantiate, is unrelated to, or contradicts the assertion. Minor errors, which are an oversimplification, overgeneralization, or trivial inaccuracies, are 35.2% (26.5% to 43.9% at a 95% confidence interval). Additionally, improper secondary (or indirect) citations, which are distinguished from calculations of quotation accuracy, occur at a rate of 10.4% (3.4% to 17.5% at a 95% confidence interval).

/pdf/accuracy-of-cited-facts-in-medical-research-articles-a-2usjfb9e0s.pdf

Accuracy of cited "facts" in medical research articles: A review of study methodology and recalculation of quotation error rate.

Accuracy of references in burns journals

To determine the accuracy of references published in Indian Pediatrics, we reviewed the reference lists appended to the original articles published in Indian Pediatrics during the year 2002 (volume 39) for citation and quotation accuracy. A total of 176 references out of 322 cited in 17 original articles could be retrieved from available resources. Errors of citation were found in 69 (39.27 percent) references while errors of quotation were found in 15 (8.6 percent) references. The most common errors were those in the name of authors and title of the article. Contributors should make serious efforts to check the accuracy of the references cited in their manuscripts.

References in Indian Pediatrics: authors need to be accurate.

A 7-year-old unimmunized boy developed cephalic tetanus following chronic suppurative otitis media. We wish to emphasize that possibility of cephalic tetanus should be considered in an unimmunized child presenting with ptosis.

Cephalic Tetanus Presenting as Ptosis.

1. Moghtaderi A, Alavi-Naini R, Rahimi-Movaghar V. Syringomyelia: an early complication of tuberculous meningitis. Trop Doct 2006;36:254-5. 2. Caplan LR, Norohna AB, Amico LL. Syringomyelia and arachnoiditis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1990;53:106-13. 3. Castillo M, Quencer RM, Green BA, Montalvo BM. Syringomyelia as a consequence of compressive extramedullary lesions: postoperative clinical and radiological manifestations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988;150:391-6. 4. Van Hall MH, Beuls EA, Wilmink JT, Boiten J, Vles JS. Magnetic resonance imaging of progressive hydrosyringomyelia in two patients with meningomyelocele. Neuropediatrics 1992;23:276-80. 5. Pandey S, Nayak R, Mehndiratta MM. Early syringomyelia in tubercular meningitis: a rare occurrence. J Neurol Res 2013;3:46-8. 6. Ramanathan SR, Ahluwalia T. Rare complication: acute syringomyelia due to tuberculoma and tubercular meningitis. J Neurosci Rural Pract 2010;1:123-5.

Mukesh Yadav

Papers

References in Indian Pediatrics: authors need to be accurate.

Cephalic Tetanus Presenting as Ptosis.

Transient Hemiparesis: A Rare Complication of Phenytoin Intoxication.