Accuracy of references in the doctoral theses in library and information science submitted to Banasthali Vidyapith
10 Feb 2020-Annals of Library and Information Studies (NISCAIR-CSIR, India)-Vol. 67, Iss: 3, pp 183-196
TL;DR: In this article, a study was carried out to investigate the accuracy of references in the fourteen Ph.D. theses in Library and Information Science (LIS) submitted to Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajasthan, India.
Abstract: The study was carried out to investigate the accuracy of references in the fourteen Ph.D. theses in Library and Information Science (LIS) submitted to Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajasthan, India. One thousand seven hundred and twenty-one (1721) journal references were checked thoroughly dividing them into seven bibliographic elements, i.e. name of the author(s), article title, journal title, year, volume number, issue number, and pages (both first and last page). These components were checked from the original journal articles. Results show that 22.08% (380) references in LIS theses had no errors, while 77.92% (1341) references contained errors. In 1341 faulty references, a sum of 2869 errors was observed, out of which 1231 were major and 1638 were minor errors. The reference accuracy rate for LIS theses ranged from 0% to 42.77%. The average number of errors in references was 1.67. The research findings indicate that citation instruction in Pre-PhD. Programme is strongly required to promote better citation behaviour.
...read more
References
More filters
TL;DR: The citation error rate of anesthesia journals is similar to that reported in other specialties, where error rates ranging from 38% to 54% have been documented.
Abstract: To determine the accuracy of bibliographic citation in the anesthesia literature, we reviewed all 1988 volumes of ANESTHESIOLOGY, Anesthesia and Analgesia, British Journal of Anaesthesia, and Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia and sequentially numbered all references appearing in that year (n = 22,748). One hundred references from each of the four journals were randomly selected. After citations to nonjournal articles (i.e., books or book chapters) were excluded, the remaining 348 citations were analyzed in detail. Six standard bibliographic elements--authors' names, article title, journal title, volume number, page numbers, and year--were examined in each selected reference. Primary sources were reviewed, unless our institution did not own the source or could not obtain it through interlibrary loan, in which case standard indexes, abstracting services, and computerized databases were consulted. Each element was checked for accuracy, and references were classified as either correct or incorrect. A reference was correct if each element of the citation was identical to its source. Of the examined references, more than half (50.3%) contained an error in at least one element. The elements most likely to be inaccurate were, in descending order, article title, author, page numbers, journal title, volume number, and year. No significant differences (P = 0.283) existed in the error rates of the four journals; the percentage of citations containing at least one error ranged from 44% (Anesthesia and Analgesia) to 56% (British Journal of Anaesthesia). The citation error rate of anesthesia journals is similar to that reported in other specialties, where error rates ranging from 38% to 54% have been documented.
68 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigated the citation errors in the reference lists of five social work journals and found that 41.2% of the citations contained at least one citation error.
Abstract: This exploratory study investigated the rate of citation errors in the reference lists of five social work journals. High error rates have been found in journals in fields such as medicine and psychology but have not yet been investigated in social work journals. A stratified, computer-generated random sample was selected (N = 500, 100 per journal), and each reference was verified against the original work for accuracy in six fields: article title, author name(s), journal title, pagination, volume, and year. In examining the total sample of 500 references across the five journals, 206 references (41.2%) contained at least one error. Suggestions for reduction of error rates are discussed, as are suggestions for future study in this area.
43 citations
TL;DR: The results of this survey showed that nearly half of the references reviewed were inaccurate, with a total of 248 errors within the incorrect group.
Abstract: Previous studies have examined the bibliographic accuracy of citations in medical journals. The purpose of this study was to assess reference accuracy in five national dental journals.One hundred references were randomly selected from the March, 1987, issue of each of five dental journals (a total of 500 references). Each reference was verified either from the original source or from other indexing tools if the original was unavailable. References were divided into two categories: incorrect and correct. The number of incorrect references was counted and subdivided into major and minor errors. The errors were grouped by types of error: author, article title, citation (which included errors in journal title, volume, issue, and page numbers), and "unable to verify". This survey found 211 (42%) inaccuracies out of 500 references reviewed, with a total of 248 errors within the incorrect group. Out of the latter, 173 (70%) were minor errors, and 75 (30%) were major errors. Types of minor errors ranked as follow...
42 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: There is a need for greater awareness among LIS professionals of keeping their citations error free, and other aspects of the subject for further study are suggested.
Abstract: Five core library science journals were examined to study the accuracy of citations in library literature. A total of 1,094 references from 131 articles were verified directly by comparing the published citation with the original publication. In 193 references, 223 errors were detected. A review of citations at manuscript stage was also carried out for one of the journals. The results of the study show that library and information professionals, in spite of their awareness of difficulties posed by inaccurate citations, are prone to making such mistakes themselves. The article emphasizes a need for greater awareness among LIS professionals of keeping their citations error free, and suggests other aspects of the subject for further study
20 citations
TL;DR: Citations in five leading environmental science journals were examined for accuracy and citations containing electronic links had fewer errors than those without.
Abstract: Citations in five leading environmental science journals were examined for accuracy. 24.41% of the 2,650 citations checked were found to contain errors. The largest category of errors was in the author field. Of the five journals Conservation Biology had the lowest percentage of citations with errors and Climatic Change had the highest. Of the citations with errors that could be checked in Web of Science, 18.18% of the errors caused a search for the cited article to fail. Citations containing electronic links had fewer errors than those without.
17 citations