Abstract
Introduction A substantial rate of quotation errors has been reported in
medical journal publications: about 25% of all quotations are wrong. It
is, however, entirely unclear how important quotation errors are for the message
of quoting articles.
Methods This is a case study in form of a retrospective quotation analysis
of a cohort of 72 psychiatric original articles (index articles) from 5
German-language general psychiatric journals. Main outcomes were importance and
accuracy of quotations from the 2 calendar years following the publication of
index articles.
Results Fifty-one index articles were quoted 235 times in 109 quoting
articles. Almost all quotations were of medium (76% [95% CI:
70%; 81%]) or high (20% [15%, 25%])
importance for the message of the quoting paper. Regarding quotation accuracy,
44 quotations (19% [14%; 24%]) were rated as minor, and
51 (22% [17%; 27%]) as major errors. In multivariable
analyses, no statistically significant and practically relevant factors
associated with quotation inaccuracy emerged, such as self-quotation, impact
factor of the quoting journal, or importance. Among quoting articles, 7
(6% [3%; 13%]) showed a pattern of predominantly quoting
index articles from the time span relevant to the calculation of the impact
factor.
Discussion Quotations are important for the message of the quoting paper.
Therefore, quotation errors may be detrimental to scientific reasoning and may
undermine public trust in medical science. The present investigation is a case
study, and its results are exploratory. While it is plausible that the findings
translate into other environments, independent replication is needed.
Key words
quotation accuracy - bibiometric study - psychiatric journals
