Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Oct 27:3:e1364.
doi: 10.7717/peerj.1364. eCollection 2015.

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

Hannah Jergas  1 , Christopher Baethge  2
Affiliations

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

Hannah Jergas et al. PeerJ. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Bibliography; Citations; Impact factor; Journalology; Medical journals; Meta-analysis; Quotation accuracy; References; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Hannah Jergas has no competing interests to declare. Christopher Baethge is editor of Deutsches Ärzteblatt and Deutsches Ärzteblatt International and employee of the publishing house Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag. For this systematic review he has selected one of his own studies

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Forest plot of total quotation errors (main analysis).
A “2” behind first author names indicates use of data relevant for our main analysis. In supplementary analyses below the studies appear without a number, indicating use of data subsets for sensitivity anlyses (see methods).
Figure 3
Figure 3. Forest plot of major quotation errors (main analysis).
Figure 4
Figure 4. Forest plot of minor quotation errors (main analysis).
Figure 5
Figure 5. Meta regression: total quotation errors on publication date of study included in the present meta-analysis (main analysis).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Al-Benna S, Rajgarhia P, Ahmed S, Sheikh Z. Accuracy of references in burns journals. Burns. 2009;35(5):677–680. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2008.11.014. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Awrey J, Inaba K, Barmparas G, Recinos G, Teixeira PG, Chan LS, Talving P, Demetriades D. Reference accuracy in the general surgery literature. World Journal of Surgery. 2010;35(3):475–479. doi: 10.1007/s00268-010-0912-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Azer S. Evaluation of gastroenterology and hepatology articles on Wikipedia. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 2014;26(2):155–163. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2010;303(20):2058–2064. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.651. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Buchan J, Norris J, Kuper H. Accuracy of referencing in the ophthalmic literature. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2005;140(6):1146–1148. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2005.07.018. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources