107
views
1
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Preserving the Integrity of Citations and References by All Stakeholders of Science Communication

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Citations to scholarly items are building bricks for multidisciplinary science communication. Citation analyses are currently influencing individual career advancement and ranking of academic and research institutions worldwide. This article overviews the involvement of scientific authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, indexers, and learned associations in the citing and referencing to preserve the integrity of science communication. Authors are responsible for thorough bibliographic searches to select relevant references for their articles, comprehend main points, and cite them in an ethical way. Reviewers and editors may perform additional searches and recommend missing essential references. Publishers, in turn, are in a position to instruct their authors over the citations and references, provide tools for validation of references, and open access to bibliographies. Publicly available reference lists bear important information about the novelty and relatedness of the scholarly items with the published literature. Few editorial associations have dealt with the issue of citations and properly managed references. As a prime example, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) issued in December 2014 an updated set of recommendations on the need for citing primary literature and avoiding unethical references, which are applicable to the global scientific community. With the exponential growth of literature and related references, it is critically important to define functions of all stakeholders of science communication in curbing the issue of irrational and unethical citations and thereby improve the quality and indexability of scholarly journals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references79

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Scientific publications. Coercive citation in academic publishing.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Wikipedia and Medicine: Quantifying Readership, Editors, and the Significance of Natural Language

            Background Wikipedia is a collaboratively edited encyclopedia. One of the most popular websites on the Internet, it is known to be a frequently used source of health care information by both professionals and the lay public. Objective This paper quantifies the production and consumption of Wikipedia’s medical content along 4 dimensions. First, we measured the amount of medical content in both articles and bytes and, second, the citations that supported that content. Third, we analyzed the medical readership against that of other health care websites between Wikipedia’s natural language editions and its relationship with disease prevalence. Fourth, we surveyed the quantity/characteristics of Wikipedia’s medical contributors, including year-over-year participation trends and editor demographics. Methods Using a well-defined categorization infrastructure, we identified medically pertinent English-language Wikipedia articles and links to their foreign language equivalents. With these, Wikipedia can be queried to produce metadata and full texts for entire article histories. Wikipedia also makes available hourly reports that aggregate reader traffic at per-article granularity. An online survey was used to determine the background of contributors. Standard mining and visualization techniques (eg, aggregation queries, cumulative distribution functions, and/or correlation metrics) were applied to each of these datasets. Analysis focused on year-end 2013, but historical data permitted some longitudinal analysis. Results Wikipedia’s medical content (at the end of 2013) was made up of more than 155,000 articles and 1 billion bytes of text across more than 255 languages. This content was supported by more than 950,000 references. Content was viewed more than 4.88 billion times in 2013. This makes it one of if not the most viewed medical resource(s) globally. The core editor community numbered less than 300 and declined over the past 5 years. The members of this community were half health care providers and 85.5% (100/117) had a university education. Conclusions Although Wikipedia has a considerable volume of multilingual medical content that is extensively read and well-referenced, the core group of editors that contribute and maintain that content is small and shrinking in size.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Retractions in the medical literature: how many patients are put at risk by flawed research?

              R Steen (2011)
              Clinical papers so flawed that they are eventually retracted may put patients at risk. Patient risk could arise in a retracted primary study or in any secondary study that draws ideas or inspiration from a primary study. To determine how many patients were put at risk, we evaluated 788 retracted English-language papers published from 2000 to 2010, describing new research with humans or freshly derived human material. These primary papers-together with all secondary studies citing them-were evaluated using ISI Web of Knowledge. Excluded from study were 468 basic science papers not studying fresh human material; 88 reviews presenting older data; 22 case reports; 7 papers retracted for journal error and 23 papers unavailable on Web of Knowledge. Overall, 180 retracted primary papers (22.8%) met the inclusion criteria. Subjects enrolled and patients treated in 180 primary studies and 851 secondary studies were combined. Retracted papers were cited over 5000 times, with 93% of citations being research related, suggesting that ideas promulgated in retracted papers can influence subsequent research. Over 28 000 subjects were enrolled-and 9189 patients were treated-in 180 retracted primary studies. Over 400 000 subjects were enrolled-and 70 501 patients were treated-in 851 secondary studies which cited a retracted paper. Papers retracted for fraud (n=70) treated more patients per study (p<0.01) than papers retracted for error (n=110). Many patients are put at risk by retracted studies. These are conservative estimates, as only patients enrolled in published clinical studies were tallied.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Korean Med Sci
                J. Korean Med. Sci
                JKMS
                Journal of Korean Medical Science
                The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences
                1011-8934
                1598-6357
                November 2015
                16 October 2015
                : 30
                : 11
                : 1545-1552
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, West Midlands, UK.
                [2 ]Department of Biochemistry, Biology and Microbiology, South Kazakhstan State Pharmaceutical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.
                [3 ]Department of Marketing and Trade Deals, Kuban State University, Krasnodar, Russian Federation.
                [4 ]Department of Statistics and Econometrics, Stavropol State Agrarian University, Stavropol, Russian Federation.
                [5 ]Faculty of Accounting and Finance, Department of Accounting Management Accounting, Stavropol State Agrarian University, Stavropol, Russian Federation.
                [6 ]Arthritis Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
                Author notes
                Address for Correspondence: Armen Yuri Gasparyan, MD. Departments of Rheumatology and Research & Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley DY1 2HQ, West Midlands, UK. Tel: +44.1384-244842, Fax: +44.1384-244808, a.gasparyan@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                10.3346/jkms.2015.30.11.1545
                4630468
                26538996
                ff5825fe-8922-4e16-8c32-91c250a43552
                © 2015 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 01 September 2015
                : 08 September 2015
                Categories
                Special Article
                Editing, Writing & Publishing

                Medicine
                science communication,bibliography as topic,periodicals as topic,citations,publication ethics

                Comments

                Comment on this article