Cited by 3Academic Writing and PublishingAcademic integrity and plagiarismscientometrics and bibliometrics research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Qualitative Problem of Major Quotation Errors, as Illustrated by 10 Different Examples in the Headache Literature

Tfelt‐Hansen, Peer·2015·Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain

Abstract

There are two types of errors when references are used in the scientific literature: citation errors and quotation errors, and these errors have in reviews mainly been evaluated quantitatively. Quotation errors are the major problem, and 1 review reported 6% major quotation errors. The objective of this listing of quotation errors is to illustrate by qualitative analysis of different types of 10 major quotation errors how and possibly why authors misquote references. The author selected for review the first 10 different consecutive major quotation errors encountered from his reading of the headache literature. The characteristics of the 10 quotation errors ranged considerably. Thus, in a review of migraine therapy in a very prestigious medical journal, the superiority of a new treatment (sumatriptan) vs an old treatment (aspirin plus metoclopramide) was claimed despite no significant difference for the primary efficacy measure in the trial. One author, in a scientific debate, referred to the lack of dilation of the middle meningeal artery in spontaneous migraine despite the fact that only 1 migraine attack was studied. The possibility for creative major quotation errors in the medical literature is most likely infinite. Qualitative evaluations, as the present, of major quotation errors will hopefully result in more general awareness of quotation problems in the medical literature. Even if the final responsibility for correct use of quotations is with the authors, the referees…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/head.12529

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. 10.1177/1060028089023007-813 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1097/00008506-199701000-00004 · DOI
  3. 10.1001/jama.287.21.2847 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1016/j.ajo.2005.07.018 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/S1479-666X(08)80067-4 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.2106/JBJS.I.00063 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Tfelt‐Hansen P, 2013, Essential problems with references in the medical literature, Ugeskr Laeger, 175, 2019
  8. 10.2169/internalmedicine.48.2565 · DOI
  9. 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2006.00601.x · DOI
  10. 10.1016/S0009-9236(96)90053-3 · DOI
  11. 10.1159/000116759 · DOI
  12. 10.1159/000116818 · DOI
  13. 10.1001/archneurpsyc.1953.02320350003001 · DOI
  14. 10.1002/ana.410280610 · DOI
  15. 10.1001/archneurpsyc.1938.02270040093005 · DOI
  16. 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2008.01578.x · DOI
  17. 10.1001/archsurg.1940.01210040002001 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/0306-4522(95)00541-2 · DOI
  19. 10.1007/s00221-009-1842-1 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/0006-8993(93)90486-7 · DOI
  21. 10.1046/j.1469-7580.1999.19440579.x · DOI
  22. 10.1046/j.1468-2982.1995.1505384.x · DOI
  23. 10.1002/ana.410280213 · DOI
  24. 10.1002/ana.410330109 · DOI
  25. 10.1093/brain/117.3.427 · DOI
  26. 10.1111/head.12269 · DOI
  27. 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2007.01006.x · DOI
  28. 10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70266-6 · DOI
  29. 10.1136/bmj.38302.504063.8F · DOI
  30. 10.1136/bmj.b3914 · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.12.021 · DOI
  32. Gupta P, 2005, References in Indian Pediatrics: Authors need to be accurate, Indian Pediatr, 42, 140
  33. 10.1093/brain/awn094 · DOI
  34. 10.1161/01.STR.20.12.1733 · DOI
  35. 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2006.01257.x · DOI
  36. 10.1038/jcbfm.1994.130 · DOI
  37. Schreiber SJ, 2000, Assessment of blood flow velocity and diameter of the middle cerebral artery during acetazolamide provocation test by use of transcranial Doppler sonography and MR imaging, AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 21, 1207
  38. 10.1016/j.pain.2014.05.019 · DOI
  39. Wolff HG, 1963, Headache and Other Head Pain
  40. 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2008.01623.x · DOI
  41. Sanchez del Rio M, 2006, The Headaches, 351

Metadata

Authors
Tfelt‐Hansen, P.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Tfelt‐Hansen, Peer
Venue
Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-03
Volume
55
Issue
3
Pages
419-426
ISSN
  • 0017-8748 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-4610
OpenAlex
W2099751962
Cited by
3
References
5
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Headache The Journal of Head and Face Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
quotation errors, citation errors, scientific publications, migraine treatment, sumatriptan, peer review
MeSH terms
Female, Headache, Humans, Male, Periodicals as Topic, Quality Control, Retrospective Studies, Peer Review, Research, Journalism, Medical

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