Cited by 6scientometrics and bibliometrics researchAcademic integrity and plagiarismAcademic Writing and Publishing

Unveiling the ethical void: Bias in reference citations and its academic ramifications

Open access
Mattiazzi, Alicia, Vila-Petroff, Martin·2024·Current Research in Physiology

Abstract

Citation bias receives scant attention in discussions of ethics. However, inaccurate citation may lead to significant distortions in scientific understanding. Although ethnical and gender citation disparities have been proposed as critical aspects, there are other contributors to citation distortions, like region-based citation bias, that, although less recognized within the scientific community, are equally important. While the foundations of scientific citation include acknowledging pioneers, giving credit to related work, and providing background reading, other more subjective or even questionable criteria are often used when constructing a reference lists. Here, we discuss the potential causes and ethical concerns of citation bias, emphasizing the role of international- or region-based citation bias as one of the most harmful aspects of this ethical breach. We argue that the international scientific community should be aware of this problem and recognize its consequences, which include hindering the accurate dissemination of science, marginalizing underrepresented voices in academia, and impeding scientific progress. We advocate that scientists should compile their reference lists with the same seriousness and integrity they apply to all other aspects of their research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.crphys.2024.100130

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Citation error further marginalises underrepresented voices by mixing known discriminatory social factors into empirical relevance.

    “to further marginalise underrepresented voices by mixing known discriminatory social factors, like popularity, accessibility and eminence, into empirical relevance”

    From Adding a simple log to in-text citations to strengthen information literacy and argumentation while blocking casual misuse of generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as Mattiazzi & Vila-Petroff, 2024

    The paper states that unequal citation practices marginalize underrepresented voices and describes prejudice and limited research visibility as contributors to citation disparities (sections labeled Abstract; no page supplied). It does not identify popularity, accessibility, and eminence as a set of discriminatory factors mixed into assessments of empirical relevance. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Citation error hinders accurate dissemination of scientific knowledge by worsening the signal-to-noise ratio in scientific communication.

    “Citation error is argued to hinder accurate dissemination of what we have learned by worsening the signal to noise ratio in scientific communication”

    From Adding a simple log to in-text citations to strengthen information literacy and argumentation while blocking casual misuse of generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as Mattiazzi & Vila-Petroff, 2024

    The paper states that distortions in reference lists hinder the accurate dissemination of science (passage [1], section labeled Abstract; no page given). It does not describe this effect as a worsening of the signal-to-noise ratio in scientific communication, so that mechanism is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Citation error slows scientific progress by introducing errors into subsequent research.

    “and to slow scientific progress by introducing errors into subsequent research”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Asai S. Author choice of journal type based on income level of country JSP 53 2021 24 34 10.3138/jsp.53.1.03 · DOI
  2. Bauman Z. Liquid Modernity 2000 Polity Press Cambridge, UK
  3. Borrego A. Article processing charges for open access journalpublishing: a review Learn. Publ. 36 2023 359 378
  4. Corbyn Z. An easy way to boost a paper's citations Nature 406 2010 510 515 10.1038/news.2010.406 · DOI
  5. Dworkin J.D. Linn K.A. Teich E.G. Perry Z. Russell T.S. Bassett D.S. The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists Nat. Neurosci. 23 2020 918 926 32561883
  6. Eisner D.A. Reproducibility of science: fraud, impact factors and carelessness J. Mol. Cell. Cardiol. 114 2018 364 368 10.1016/j.yjmcc.2017.10.009 29079076 PMC6565841 · DOI
  7. Fanelli D. Opinion: is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115 2018 2628 2631 10.1073/pnas.1708272114 29531051 PMC5856498 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Gomez C.J. Herman A.C. Parigi P. Leading countries in global science increasingly receive more citations than other countries doing similar research Nat. Human Behav. 6 2022 919 929 35637294 PMC9314251
  9. Greenberg S.A. How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network BMJ 339 2009 b2680 10.1136/bmj.b2680 19622839 PMC2714656 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Ioannidis J.P.A. Why most published research findings are false PLoS Med. 2 2005 e124 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124N 16060722 PMC1182327 · DOI
  11. Jaffar S. Zaidi A. Taqi M. Citation cartels in medical and dental journals J Coll. Physicians Surg. Pak. J. 33 2023 700 701 10.29271/jcpsp.2023.06.700 37300268 · DOI
  12. Kozlowski D. Murray D.S. Bell A. Hulsey W. Larivière V. Monroe-White T. Sugimoto C.R. Avoiding bias when inferring race using name-based approaches PLoS One 17 2022 e0264270 10.1371/journal.pone.0264270 PMC8887775 35231059 · DOI
  13. Larivière V. Ni Ch Gingras Y. Cronin B. Sugimoto C.R. Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science Nature 504 2013 211 213 10.1038/504211a 10.1038/504211a · PMID: 24350369 24350369 · DOI
  14. Leung P.T.M. Macdonald E.M. Stanbrook M.B. Dhalla i.A. Juurlink D.N. N. Engl. J. Med. 376 2017 22 28564561
  15. Mattiazzi A. Vila-Petroff M. Is Bauman's “liquid modernity” influencing the way we are doing science? J. Gen. Physiol. 153 2021 e202012803 10.1085/jgp.202012803 PMC7961533 33710262 · DOI
  16. Neylon C. Stop misusing data when hiring academics Nature 607 2022 637 10.1038/d41586-022-02038-7 35882991 · DOI
  17. Robinson K.A. Goodman S.N. A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials Ann. Intern. Med. 154 2011 50 55 10.7326/0003-4819-154-1-201101040-00007 21200038 · DOI
  18. Silbiger N.J. Stubler A.D. Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM PeerJ 7 2019 e8247 10.7717/peerj.8247 PMC6911688 31844596 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Stang A. Jonas S. Poole C. Case study in major quotation errors: a critical commentary on the Newcastle–Ottawa scale Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2018 10.1007/s10654-018-0443-3 30259221 · DOI
  20. Taylor D.M. The appropriate use of references in a scientific research paper. Emerg Méd. 14 2002 166 170 12147114
  21. Van Noorden R. More than 100000 research papers were retracted in 2023- A New Record Nature 264 2023 481 38087103
  22. Vickers M.D. Citation errors — there is still much to be done Can. J. Anaesth. 42 1995 1063 1063 8590500
  23. Wislar J.S. Fontanarosa P.B. Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey BMJ 343 2011 d6128 10.1136/bmj.d6128 PMC3202014 22028479 · DOI · Paper page

Authors
Mattiazzi, A., & Vila-Petroff, M.
Affiliations
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
Corresponding author
Mattiazzi, Alicia
Venue
Current Research in Physiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024
Volume
7
Pages
100130
ISSN
2665-9441 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4401009021
Cited by
6
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Research in Physiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Conicet (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Research Council
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (PIP 0627)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
Keywords
citation bias, citation ethics, works cited, scientific integrity, underrepresented researchers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review