CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 19Academic Writing and PublishingAcademic integrity and plagiarismPublishing and Scholarly Communication

The Virtues of Correct Citation

Open access
Mertens, Stephan, Baethge, Christopher·2011·Deutsches Ärzteblatt international
DOI 10.3238/arztebl.2011.0550PMC PMC3167934
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Scientific statements have to be supported by evidence. The usual way to do this in academic articles is by citing the literature—that is, by giving references. A reference citation is supposed to provide accurate underpinning for a statement and to represent the current state of research, or, in the case of a maverick opinion, to ensure it is recognizable as such. Reference to a published source allows the reader to probe more deeply into the subject and puts him or her in a position to judge the underlying evidence. Using references puts the author under a duty to formulate them precisely so as to reproduce the source publication accurately. The convention of reference citation is a constituent element of scientific texts; it distinguishes them from journalism and other forms of writing and gives their content a particular authority. The majority of readers will have more confidence in a referenced statement than in one without a reference, even without checking it. The choice and placing of references, however, are complex processes prone to error. The following mistakes can appear: The source does not support the statement, or does so only partially (“quotation errors”). The reference citation is placed in such a way that it is not clear which statement it relates to. The bibliographic data (authors, title, volume number, page numbers, or journal title) are incomplete or wrong (“citation errors”). This can make it difficult or impossible to find the source. Quotation errors are particularly problematic because it is difficult to spot them: Often the reader can only judge the accuracy of a reference if he or she has relevant specialist knowledge or takes the trouble to research the sources cited. Another form of referencing error, which will not be treated here, is plagiarism: In this case the source of information is knowingly suppressed and the statement is presented as the plagiarizing author’s own intellectual achievement (1).

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 · 10.3238/arztebl.2011.0550

Cites

9 of 9 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?

  • Previous reviews noted that the original studies had different criteria for quotation errors and different methods to calculate the total quotation error rate.

    “As noted by the authors of previous reviews,[5, 7–9] the original studies had different criteria for quotation errors and different methods to calculate the total quotation errors rate.”

    From Accuracy of cited "facts" in medical research articles: A review of study methodology and recalculation of quotation error rate (2017) · cites this paper as [8]

    In the discussion of quotation errors (page not available), the paper says definitions of errors were not homogeneous across studies, supporting the claim about different criteria. It does not say the studies used different methods to calculate the total quotation-error rate. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Previous reviews estimated that approximately 20 to 25% of assertions cited from original research articles are inaccurately quoted in the medical literature.

    “Previous reviews estimated that approximately 20 to 25% of assertions cited from original research articles, or “facts,” are inaccurately quoted in the medical literature.”

    From Accuracy of cited "facts" in medical research articles: A review of study methodology and recalculation of quotation error rate (2017) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Quotation errors section reports a median error rate of 20% in a systematic review of references from biomedical journals, and the Conclusion describes an error rate of around 20%. The paper does not establish that this estimate applies specifically to assertions citing original research articles rather than references more generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The estimated 14.5% quotation error rate is approximately 5-10% lower than estimates reported in previous reviews.

    “This estimate has a more specific definition of the “medical literature,” as original research articles, and is approximately 5–10% lower than estimates reported in previous reviews.[5, 7, 8]”

    From Accuracy of cited "facts" in medical research articles: A review of study methodology and recalculation of quotation error rate (2017) · cites this paper as [8]

  • In a subsequent review of studies published through 2011, the mean quotation error rate was estimated at 19.7%.

    “In a subsequent review of studies published through 2011, a similar quotation error rate mean was estimated at 19.7%.[8]”

    From Accuracy of cited "facts" in medical research articles: A review of study methodology and recalculation of quotation error rate (2017) · cites this paper as [8]

  • This analysis included the same studies in the quantitative analysis as the other reviews, which used slightly different search procedures.

    “This analysis included the same studies in the quantitate analysis as the other reviews,[5, 7, 8] which used slightly different search procedures.”

    From Accuracy of cited "facts" in medical research articles: A review of study methodology and recalculation of quotation error rate (2017) · cites this paper as [8]

    The ‘Quotation errors’ section describes this paper’s Medline search and its restriction to publications from 2008 onward to avoid double-counting studies in an earlier review. Neither that section nor the Conclusion addresses whether the citing document’s quantitative analysis included the same studies as other reviews using different search procedures. Searches for that comparison found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mertens, S., & Baethge, C.
Corresponding author
Mertens, Stephan
ORCID
Baethge, Christopher
Venue
Deutsches Ärzteblatt international
Publisher
Deutscher Arzte-Verlag GmbH
Published
2011-08-19
Volume
108
Issue
33
Pages
550-2
ISSN
1866-0452 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3238/arztebl.2011.0550
PMC
PMC3167934
OpenAlex
W2163166991
Cited by
19
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
Type
journal article
Language
de
Open access
Locations
  • Deutsches Ärzteblatt international (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
Keywords
citation errors, quotation errors, reference citation, scientific writing, plagiarism, medical literature
MeSH terms
Authorship, Bibliographies as Topic, Germany, Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Research Design, Bibliometrics, Peer Review, Research

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