Citing practices in ecology: can we believe our own words?
Open accessThe 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Marine biology (75.8% clearly supported) and ecology (76.1% clearly supported) are similar.
“the similarity between marine biology (75.8% of assertions 'clearly supported') and ecology (76.1% of assertions 'clearly supported') (Todd et al. 2007).”
From One in four citations in marine biology papers is inappropriate (2010) · cites this paper as Todd et al. 2007
The results passage reports that 76.1% of assertions in the ecology sample were clearly supported. Our copy does not report the marine biology figure of 75.8%, so it cannot substantiate the claimed similarity between the two fields. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThis is the first time that two such studies have followed identical methodologies and at least one author has been involved in both to ensure consistency, thereby allowing a direct comparison between two disciplines.
“To our knowledge, this is the first time that 2 such studies have followed identical methodologies and at least 1 author has been involved in both to ensure consistency, thereby allowing a direct comparison between 2 disciplines.”
From One in four citations in marine biology papers is inappropriate (2010) · cites this paper as Todd et al. 2007
The methods section describes Todd et al.'s ecology study, and the discussion compares its results with biomedical studies. But the discussion calls those studies' approaches similar, not identical; our copy does not establish a shared author, a two-study comparison using identical methods, or the claimed first-time status. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredStudies in other fields report numbers similar to those in this meta-analysis.
“Studies in other fields report numbers similar to those in this meta-analysis.”
From Quotation accuracy in medical journal articles—a systematic review and meta-analysis (2015) · cites this paper as Todd et al. (2007)
Todd et al. (2007) found that 7.2% of 306 references did not support the original statement, 11.1% were ambiguous, and 5.6% were empty references.
“Todd et al. (2007), in an investigation of 306 references, found that 7.2% did not support the original statement (a major error in the definition of this article), 11.1% were “ambiguous” (minor errors), and 5.6% were “empty” references (secondary or indirect references in our terminology).”
From Quotation accuracy in medical journal articles—a systematic review and meta-analysis (2015) · cites this paper as Todd et al. (2007)
The numbers correspond with Todd et al. (2007), suggesting they are representative of a wider problem within field-orientated biology.
“The numbers correspond with Todd et al. (2007), suggesting they are representative of a wider problem within field-orientated biology.”
From One in four citations in marine biology papers is inappropriate (2010) · cites this paper as Todd et al. (2007)
Todd et al. (2007) were the first to measure citation misconduct in another branch of biology: ecology.
“Todd et al. (2007) were the first to measure citation misconduct in another branch of biology: ecology.”
From One in four citations in marine biology papers is inappropriate (2010) · cites this paper as Todd et al. (2007)
Todd et al. (2007) determined that approximately one-quarter of citations were ambiguous, 'empty' (citations to secondary sources), or did not support the assertion at all.
“They determined that approximately one-quarter of citations were ambiguous, 'empty' (citations to secondary sources), or did not support the assertion at all.”
From One in four citations in marine biology papers is inappropriate (2010) · cites this paper as Todd et al. (2007)
The study followed the methodology of Todd et al. (2007) to allow direct comparison with ecologists.
“To quantify citing behaviour among marine biologists in a way that could be directly compared with that of ecologists we followed the methodology of Todd et al. (2007)”
From One in four citations in marine biology papers is inappropriate (2010) · cites this paper as Todd et al. (2007)
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
Lawrence, P. A. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/422259a · Cited by 354 · see citing works
Simkin, M. V., Roychowdhury, V. P., & Department of Electrical Engineering, U. O. C. (2024) · Complex Systems · doi:10.25088/complexsystems.14.3.269 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
Harzing, A. (2002) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.125 · Cited by 188 · see citing works
How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals?
de Lacey, G., Record, C., & Wade, J. (1985) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.291.6499.884 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
The accuracy of citation and quotation in otolaryngology/head and neck surgery journals
Fenton, J. E., Brazier, H., Souza, A., Hughes, J. P., & McShane, D. P. (2000) · Clinical Otolaryngology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2273.2000.00322.x · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Referencing and quotation accuracy in four manual therapy journals
Gosling, C. M., Cameron, M., & Gibbons, P. F. (2004) · Manual Therapy · doi:10.1016/s1356-689x(03)00056-0 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Citation and quotation accuracy in three anatomy journals
Lukić, I. K., Lukić, A., Glunc̆ić, V., Katavić, V., Vuc̆enik, V., & Marus̆ić, A. (2004) · Clinical Anatomy · doi:10.1002/ca.10255 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Reference accuracy in the emergency medicine literature
Goldberg, R., Newton, E., Cameron, J., Jacobson, R., Chan, L., Bukata, W. R., & Rakab, A. (1993) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0196-0644(05)81995-x · Cited by 49 · see citing works
6 The United Kingdom Parliament
McFadden, J., & McFadzean, D. (2016) · Edinburgh University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9780748698318-009 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Reference citations in radiology: accuracy and appropriateness of use in two major journals.
Hansen, M. E., & McIntire, D. D. (1994) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.163.3.8079876 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Paper trail reveals references go unread by citing authors
Ball, P. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/420594a · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Inappropriate attribution: the “lazy author syndrome”
GAVRAS, H. (2002) · American Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1016/s0895-7061(02)02989-8 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Scientists' Suicides Prompt Soul-Searching in China
Yimin, D. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.311.5763.940 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Quotation accuracy in medical journal articles—a systematic review and meta-analysis
Jergas, H., & Baethge, C. (2015) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.1364 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
“In ecology, several studies have been conducted: Todd et al. (2007), in an investigation of 306 references, found that 7.2% did not support the original statement (a major error in the definition of this article), 11.1% were “ambiguous” (minor errors), and 5.6% were “empty” references (secondary or…”
BackgroundInfluentialOne in four citations in marine biology papers is inappropriate
Todd, P., Guest, Jr., Lu, J., & Chou, L. (2010) · Marine Ecology Progress Series · doi:10.3354/meps08587 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Self-citationCitation-Based Journal Rankings: Key Questions, Metrics, and Data Sources
Walters, W. H. (2017) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2017.2761400 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Incorrect citations give unfair credit to review authors in ecology journals
Teixeira, M. C., Thomaz, S. M., Michelan, T. S., Mormul, R. P., Meurer, T., Fasolli, J. V. B., & Silveira, M. J. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081871 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Quotation errors in general science journals
Smith, N., & Cumberledge, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspa.2020.0538 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Citation accuracy in environmental science journals
Lopresti, R. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0293-6 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Referencing practices in physical geography: How well do we cite what we write?
Haussmann, N. S., McIntyre, T., Bumby, A. J., & Loubser, M. J. (2013) · Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment · doi:10.1177/0309133313482135 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Drake, D. C., Maritz, B., Jacobs, S. M., Crous, C. J., Engelbrecht, A., Etale, A., Fourie, M. J., Furniss, D. G., Scott, S. L., Parusnath, S., et al. (2013) · Hydrobiologia · doi:10.1007/s10750-012-1392-6 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
- Authors
- Todd, P. A., Yeo, D. C. J., Li, D., & Ladle, R. J.
- Affiliations
- National University of Singapore (SG)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Venue
- Oikos
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-09
- Volume
- 116
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1599-1601
- ISSN
- 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0706
- OpenAlex
- W2055135367
- Cited by
- 55
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 3.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Oikos (publishedVersion)
- National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- citation practices, citation analysis, research credibility
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
