How often has highly relevant work by you been ignored in subsequent publications by others?
Replacement content
How often have you knowingly failed to cite relevant papers from others?
Replacement content
Often removed by editors who
say "too many references -
reduce to the very most
relevant" or something like
that
I have an ongoing regularly scheduled computer search done in my research area.
it was necessary to cite only few most relevant papers when the volume of my article had to be limited
None of them, practices too varied to generalize.
mostly found out between submission and final publication
just by one author whose data are always suspect
Never on purpose; never to my knowledge
We searched hard for papers that were relevant to our novel finding and could not find anything. We missed one that was apparently too new to be found in PubMed when we were writing our paper.
We searched hard for papers that were relevant to our novel finding and could not find anything. We missed one that was apparently too new to be found in PubMed when we were writing our paper.
"knowingly" is the key here
The reason was space limitations- I wound up placing an alternate copy of the paper with more complete citations in the supplemental information section.
Mostly I cite too many and have to cull.
When there are many relevant papers, I've tried to find a review article that cites them.
I've had a reviewer point out a relevant article that had escaped my notice, which resulted in the article being cited in the final version of the manuscript.
Most part of literature is not readily available (you have to pay for it) and, therefore, I not cite it (poor fundings)!!
I did so inadvertedly, though.
I have never done that. But heard of PIs inserting irrelavant citations to papers authored by editors/potential reviewers to get their papers a better chance!
(In my opinion.)
Despite really wanting to in a couple of cases!
Nobody can cite all relevant papers all the time; there are simply too many of them. I do cite a reasonable selection of relevant papers and I don't try to pass off other peoples' ideas as my own.
If it fits into the introduction or discussion I try to include it.
I make a good faith effort to find and cite relevant papers
The problem is far too severe for these.
It`s litle probably nowadays but never say never
I always give colleagues to review my work before submission and ask them to check if i forgot to cite someone
Sometimes sections of a paper in which relevant papers are discussed get excised by the reviewers. So it is knowingly, but inescapable.
Of course, the problem is in completely knowing the existing literature. This becomes harder as every new journal is introduced and as time demands become greater
The key word is "knowingly"!
Probably more frequently than I know due to not knowing all the relevant literature and retaliation against competitors who ignored my papers
but ony regarding those who do not cite my work in spite of my polite complaints!
I have been asked by my advisor to not reference a specific paper.
We try to cite original research articles above reviews.
To keep within total citation limits
Never "knowingly".
If there are multiple relevant papers on a topic, I try to only cite the first ones to make the relevant observations and the ones that build on the seminal work significantly
Nobody's perfect and fail to heed the quotation of Santayana (To paraphrase, to know the present or the future we need to know the past (research experience)!
Citing relevant work only strengthens your findings or position
Because of restriction on page length by the journal
Journal space limitations sometimes require that reviews- or only the most recent papers from a group- be cited
You can't cite every relevant paper, only the most important and ones focused on the specific topic.
I have not published a technical paper for more than 25 years and I may prior to have unrintentional not given credit to someone.
no fedback out of pride and prejudice
It is usually impossible to cite every relevant paper.
Failure to cite has been by accident, when I have found a citation which would have been useful after my paper has been published.
once. I thought it was a rubbish paper and would have made the discussion 10 times more difficult to write.
Never knowingly, always welcome feedback from those that think an error has been made.
Except in rare situations I do not think the most investigators knowingly fail to cite important (and correct) studies
I try to cite the best and the most recent.
Never knowingly, However, several times I have committed citation amnesia by accident because I was unaware of "prior art" at the time.
Never knowingly, However, several times I have committed citation amnesia by accident because I was unaware of "prior art" at the time.
I do my best to avoid so
Mostly resulting from a lack of awareness-inadequate literature search
I have an ongoing regularly scheduled computer search done in my research area.
it was necessary to cite only few most relevant papers when the volume of my article had to be limited
None of them, practices too varied to generalize.
mostly found out between submission and final publication
just by one author whose data are always suspect
Never on purpose; never to my knowledge
We searched hard for papers that were relevant to our novel finding and could not find anything. We missed one that was apparently too new to be found in PubMed when we were writing our paper.
We searched hard for papers that were relevant to our novel finding and could not find anything. We missed one that was apparently too new to be found in PubMed when we were writing our paper.
"knowingly" is the key here
The reason was space limitations- I wound up placing an alternate copy of the paper with more complete citations in the supplemental information section.
Mostly I cite too many and have to cull.
When there are many relevant papers, I've tried to find a review article that cites them.
I've had a reviewer point out a relevant article that had escaped my notice, which resulted in the article being cited in the final version of the manuscript.
Most part of literature is not readily available (you have to pay for it) and, therefore, I not cite it (poor fundings)!!
I did so inadvertedly, though.
I have never done that. But heard of PIs inserting irrelavant citations to papers authored by editors/potential reviewers to get their papers a better chance!
(In my opinion.)
Despite really wanting to in a couple of cases!
Nobody can cite all relevant papers all the time; there are simply too many of them. I do cite a reasonable selection of relevant papers and I don't try to pass off other peoples' ideas as my own.
If it fits into the introduction or discussion I try to include it.
I make a good faith effort to find and cite relevant papers
The problem is far too severe for these.
It`s litle probably nowadays but never say never
I always give colleagues to review my work before submission and ask them to check if i forgot to cite someone
Sometimes sections of a paper in which relevant papers are discussed get excised by the reviewers. So it is knowingly, but inescapable.
Of course, the problem is in completely knowing the existing literature. This becomes harder as every new journal is introduced and as time demands become greater
The key word is "knowingly"!
Probably more frequently than I know due to not knowing all the relevant literature and retaliation against competitors who ignored my papers
but ony regarding those who do not cite my work in spite of my polite complaints!
I have been asked by my advisor to not reference a specific paper.
We try to cite original research articles above reviews.
To keep within total citation limits
Never "knowingly".
If there are multiple relevant papers on a topic, I try to only cite the first ones to make the relevant observations and the ones that build on the seminal work significantly
Nobody's perfect and fail to heed the quotation of Santayana (To paraphrase, to know the present or the future we need to know the past (research experience)!
Citing relevant work only strengthens your findings or position
Because of restriction on page length by the journal
Journal space limitations sometimes require that reviews- or only the most recent papers from a group- be cited
You can't cite every relevant paper, only the most important and ones focused on the specific topic.
I have not published a technical paper for more than 25 years and I may prior to have unrintentional not given credit to someone.
no fedback out of pride and prejudice
It is usually impossible to cite every relevant paper.
Failure to cite has been by accident, when I have found a citation which would have been useful after my paper has been published.
once. I thought it was a rubbish paper and would have made the discussion 10 times more difficult to write.
Never knowingly, always welcome feedback from those that think an error has been made.
Except in rare situations I do not think the most investigators knowingly fail to cite important (and correct) studies
I try to cite the best and the most recent.
Never knowingly, However, several times I have committed citation amnesia by accident because I was unaware of "prior art" at the time.
Never knowingly, However, several times I have committed citation amnesia by accident because I was unaware of "prior art" at the time.
I do my best to avoid so
Mostly resulting from a lack of awareness-inadequate literature search
In general, citation practice in the life sciences is:
Replacement content
older work that is
not widely available
online has become
invisible
Partly due to editors/reviewers
not taken seriously by many scientists.
it has definitely become more of a problem in the last 10 years. It is common for me to ask for additional references when reviewing papers.
Many younger scientists are unwilling to acquaint themselves with the classical literature.
The trend to citing reviews rather than original work is driving the problem.
People have become lazy in an age of convenience. If an earlier paper is not available electronically, they won't walk to the library to look it up and check its relevance.
People have become lazy in an age of convenience. If an earlier paper is not available electronically, they won't walk to the library to look it up and check its relevance.
The failure to cite relevant work probably affects less- well-known investigators more than it affects the most visible invetsigators, although even the well-known may be affected at times.
Viewpoint based on observations (during manuscript reviews), of increased reliance by authors on citations of review articles, and increasing neglect of the original literature.
The practice of good citation etiquette should be taught in college, if not earlier. Most students want to cite a review article and call it a day.
An additional problem is that often closely related fields dont read each other, or pretend not to...
I hope, between 1st and 2nd
American clinical researchers tend not to read, or at least not to cite publications in European journals.
We see pleople (usually very well known labs) republishing others work (not as well known) as novelty. It happened to my work.
Especially in the US there is a trend to cite only papers of fellow citizens
It is the job of the editors to select appropriate reviewers for an article. If they do this- they willchoose people who know the field themselves and can comment as to whether appropriate citation
Competition for grant money, awards, promotions and career progress in general coax scientists to put some down for one's rise.
All one needs to do is to look at the misuse of biological names and the general failure of journals to enforce the proposer citation so that readers know which underlying concept is being referred to
Serious problem that needs to be addressed.
With the large number of online journals, and pubmed only listing articles back to 1960, this problem will increase.
It's certainly well understood, but a significant minority of the investigators appear to have no reservations about stealing other people's ideas, and to get away with it with few consequences.
It is hard to keep on top of the newest literature. Sometimes it is easier to let others do the intial citing and borrow.
As a journal editor, I find this is an increasing problem, including inappropriate citation, such as attribution; reference to a review article by authors rather than to the first report(s) by others
If you are not on PubMed and the manuscript is not available as PDF you are not cited
Lack of good literature research.
These alternatives do not capture my opinion - that it's an occasional problem.
In addition to lapses due to intent or laziness by authors, both authors and peer reviewers cannot cope with the volume of information available.
This goes back to the University level. Students are not being taught the proper way to read, interpret, use and cite references.
ignorance and politics
A tendency to rely heavily on reviews, and to cite only supportive evidence is widespread.
I think there is too much emphasis on history. To cite the original paper can be a waste of time for the reader who wants a recent relevant summary rather than an "honour" for the initial scientist.
This is a weird and loaded survey. It is most unlike the Scientist to embark on this type of loaded survey. Let's start at the beginning please. There are too many assumptions here.
It is an established practice now to cite the review articles without specific reference to essential papers.
Especially work before computer storage of papers.
Many authors cite only reviews or cite only the papers that major reviews site rather than looking them up themselves. Authors should examine the primary literature they cite and not just he reivew
Again- the move towards limitations on space in publications and the growing body of published data lead to conflicts in citing ALL relevant publications.
Not always knowingly; increase in scientific publications worsens the situation.
I think most people are very careful; there are just a few bad apples.
It is well understood but not practiced
too many articles to keep up with the literature.
Another serious problem is mis-citation/misrepresentation.
Misciting work and not reading the original citation are very important and appear to be increasing. As is reading abstracts, not the whole paper causing a miscite.
Citation of scientific work seems to be restricted to a land or continent in some cases.
Where and how do you draw the line on "relevant" I just use my gut reaction.
I hope most instances are the same I suffer from. Plain forgetfullness. I would hope to never knowingly fail to cite relevant work
Too many scientists chasing too few good discoveries.
Too many scientists chasing too few good discoveries.
Pressure to publish and unfair competition among research groups is worsening the problem.
In all sciences
Even trained professionals do not understand the rules of proper citation.
Partly due to editors/reviewers
not taken seriously by many scientists.
it has definitely become more of a problem in the last 10 years. It is common for me to ask for additional references when reviewing papers.
Many younger scientists are unwilling to acquaint themselves with the classical literature.
The trend to citing reviews rather than original work is driving the problem.
People have become lazy in an age of convenience. If an earlier paper is not available electronically, they won't walk to the library to look it up and check its relevance.
People have become lazy in an age of convenience. If an earlier paper is not available electronically, they won't walk to the library to look it up and check its relevance.
The failure to cite relevant work probably affects less- well-known investigators more than it affects the most visible invetsigators, although even the well-known may be affected at times.
Viewpoint based on observations (during manuscript reviews), of increased reliance by authors on citations of review articles, and increasing neglect of the original literature.
The practice of good citation etiquette should be taught in college, if not earlier. Most students want to cite a review article and call it a day.
An additional problem is that often closely related fields dont read each other, or pretend not to...
I hope, between 1st and 2nd
American clinical researchers tend not to read, or at least not to cite publications in European journals.
We see pleople (usually very well known labs) republishing others work (not as well known) as novelty. It happened to my work.
Especially in the US there is a trend to cite only papers of fellow citizens
It is the job of the editors to select appropriate reviewers for an article. If they do this- they willchoose people who know the field themselves and can comment as to whether appropriate citation
Competition for grant money, awards, promotions and career progress in general coax scientists to put some down for one's rise.
All one needs to do is to look at the misuse of biological names and the general failure of journals to enforce the proposer citation so that readers know which underlying concept is being referred to
Serious problem that needs to be addressed.
With the large number of online journals, and pubmed only listing articles back to 1960, this problem will increase.
It's certainly well understood, but a significant minority of the investigators appear to have no reservations about stealing other people's ideas, and to get away with it with few consequences.
It is hard to keep on top of the newest literature. Sometimes it is easier to let others do the intial citing and borrow.
As a journal editor, I find this is an increasing problem, including inappropriate citation, such as attribution; reference to a review article by authors rather than to the first report(s) by others
If you are not on PubMed and the manuscript is not available as PDF you are not cited
Lack of good literature research.
These alternatives do not capture my opinion - that it's an occasional problem.
In addition to lapses due to intent or laziness by authors, both authors and peer reviewers cannot cope with the volume of information available.
This goes back to the University level. Students are not being taught the proper way to read, interpret, use and cite references.
ignorance and politics
A tendency to rely heavily on reviews, and to cite only supportive evidence is widespread.
I think there is too much emphasis on history. To cite the original paper can be a waste of time for the reader who wants a recent relevant summary rather than an "honour" for the initial scientist.
This is a weird and loaded survey. It is most unlike the Scientist to embark on this type of loaded survey. Let's start at the beginning please. There are too many assumptions here.
It is an established practice now to cite the review articles without specific reference to essential papers.
Especially work before computer storage of papers.
Many authors cite only reviews or cite only the papers that major reviews site rather than looking them up themselves. Authors should examine the primary literature they cite and not just he reivew
Again- the move towards limitations on space in publications and the growing body of published data lead to conflicts in citing ALL relevant publications.
Not always knowingly; increase in scientific publications worsens the situation.
I think most people are very careful; there are just a few bad apples.
It is well understood but not practiced
too many articles to keep up with the literature.
Another serious problem is mis-citation/misrepresentation.
Misciting work and not reading the original citation are very important and appear to be increasing. As is reading abstracts, not the whole paper causing a miscite.
Citation of scientific work seems to be restricted to a land or continent in some cases.
Where and how do you draw the line on "relevant" I just use my gut reaction.
I hope most instances are the same I suffer from. Plain forgetfullness. I would hope to never knowingly fail to cite relevant work
Too many scientists chasing too few good discoveries.
Too many scientists chasing too few good discoveries.
Pressure to publish and unfair competition among research groups is worsening the problem.
In all sciences
Even trained professionals do not understand the rules of proper citation.
Major confounders of good citation practice include:
Replacement content
I believe some authors do not
cite properly to make their
manuscripts "more novel" thus
more likely to be accepted.
I do not agree with the limitations put on citation number
is getting better with more older information available on line
Reviewers not familiar with the literature.
Too narrow a focus prevents one from researching what might have been done by people in other fields. (e.g. Biologists not finding prior theoretical work done by electrical engineers.
Sometimes overwhelming body of poorly- indexed material.
Students learn their citation standards from their mentors when writing their first paper. Unfortunately, mentors are not always scholars.
Students learn their citation standards from their mentors when writing their first paper. Unfortunately, mentors are not always scholars.
Frequently, there are limitations to the number of citations which increases the problem and justifies bad practice
Since science doesn't work in a vacuum, references that show the development of the research should be cited,not just citation of techniques used, or worst, references to build your own citation rating
Everyone wants to tell own story (partly due to publication pressure); no one wants to listen.
Reviewers should demand detailed citation.
The problem is that even experts don't know all the relevant work. Often there is so much published and it is often hard to know what papers are about because the title or abstract is uninformative.
PubMed database and journal pdfs are available only for recent years.
Many journals state they want only recent relevant article or limit the number of citations.
It is Journals/editors fault. If they cared about it, this would not happen.
especially space limitations in journals call for a restriction in the number of cited papers
are being made- In cases where this does not happen it is the editor's and reviewers fault- of course if there is actual fraud rather than negligence/laziness this is a different issue altogether.
make the editors and reviewers do their jobs. of course if NIH gets their way we may not have any good scientific publishers left....they will not be able to sell subscriptions and thus poor review
New students and post-docs will have the top two listed problems(let's say ignorance) Editors and PIs are the cause for the latter two.
Fundamental ignorance on the part of authors, reviewers and editors of the importance of proper citation. Also a generalized failure of most professional programs to adequately train students.
And the fact that pubmed comes up in order of date. Important work from prior years requires looking through the whole list.
Overburdened or incompetent reviewers who fail to check manuscripts for missing cititations.
Students no longer know science history! Anything before 1990 is the dinosaur age. Much great seminal science is lost to their memory!! Awful for academia..
Probably none of the above. Signing pledges? Shades of the Catch 22 loyalty oath crusade. Random checks? Maybe, but hard to implement. Just raising awareness won't do much. We need peer intolerance.
I wrote someone about his recent review in which he did not cite the first observation: "I want that someone else will cite it" his answer was
Also the overwhelming volume of information today
Enhanced vigilance by the reviewers who should require insertion of appropriate, omitted references.
Enhanced vigilance by the reviewers who should require insertion of appropriate, omitted references.
poor reviewing be referees and editors
A mix. Journals: referees are focused in destroying or fully accepting the paper, without appreciating its position in its scientific context. Authors: they often simply don't know their field.
authors seem to think that the best way for their research to be published, it must seem more novel than it is
It seems that if it is not available on-line people spend less and less time trying to get a hold of the paper
Not only the lack of appreciation, but also a lack of knowledge.
online availability/subscription availability
Some journals limit the number of citations. For instance, Blood restricts citations to 50. I also see competing labs not citing each others work.
As a reviewer it is surprising to note the lack of citing references before 2000 which may not be modern enough and did not involve modern technology.
Journals that make articles available online for free are more likely to be read and cited than those that charge for articles.
For eg. journal word limits may be a problem (citations should be excluded)
Lack of online free access to published full-text articles (recent and archived).
this is a wide area for improvement
someone once told me "you can't build a career that way." (by citing relevant work of others).
Multiple papers describing similar results - only 1 is referenced.
New journals have appeared that publish manuscripts that have been rejected from the best peer-reviewed journals making it almost impossible to cite every single relevant paper.
Lack of appreciation the achilles heel of all the people.
The journal did not accept responsibliity. They only would accept a correction issued by the offending author which turns to be judga and party-
Usually I have found Journals not to worry too much about numbers of citations- even though they sometimes put restrictions on.
In some cases the limitation of references from the side of a journal raises a problem.
Journal policies that limit citation numbers also contribute
Sunlight is the best disenfectant. If the journals would customarily publish letters drawing attention to incomplete citations, most of this problem would be solved.
Sunlight is the best disenfectant. If the journals would customarily publish letters drawing attention to incomplete citations, most of this problem would be solved.
Many young scientist read only general reviews on their field. Some seem to consider that relevant biology started with Watson and Crick.
"Cut and dried" attitude to history of science and mathematics
Articles prepared for elementary and secondary school children are generally devoid of citation. It's time the students are taught the importance and methods of citation.
For many authors, if it does not show up in an electronic search (i.e., published in the last 30 years) it simply does not exist to them.
also, time and the fact that the literature is expanding rapidly; other may ahve approached the problem from an entirely different field
or, a better review process where reviwers are compensated (by their employers) for the time spent in review. right now, review time is stiem stolen from your 'real job'.
A lack of understanding the principles of citation. A lack of understand the concept of stealing ideas.
I do not agree with the limitations put on citation number
is getting better with more older information available on line
Reviewers not familiar with the literature.
Too narrow a focus prevents one from researching what might have been done by people in other fields. (e.g. Biologists not finding prior theoretical work done by electrical engineers.
Sometimes overwhelming body of poorly- indexed material.
Students learn their citation standards from their mentors when writing their first paper. Unfortunately, mentors are not always scholars.
Students learn their citation standards from their mentors when writing their first paper. Unfortunately, mentors are not always scholars.
Frequently, there are limitations to the number of citations which increases the problem and justifies bad practice
Since science doesn't work in a vacuum, references that show the development of the research should be cited,not just citation of techniques used, or worst, references to build your own citation rating
Everyone wants to tell own story (partly due to publication pressure); no one wants to listen.
Reviewers should demand detailed citation.
The problem is that even experts don't know all the relevant work. Often there is so much published and it is often hard to know what papers are about because the title or abstract is uninformative.
PubMed database and journal pdfs are available only for recent years.
Many journals state they want only recent relevant article or limit the number of citations.
It is Journals/editors fault. If they cared about it, this would not happen.
especially space limitations in journals call for a restriction in the number of cited papers
are being made- In cases where this does not happen it is the editor's and reviewers fault- of course if there is actual fraud rather than negligence/laziness this is a different issue altogether.
make the editors and reviewers do their jobs. of course if NIH gets their way we may not have any good scientific publishers left....they will not be able to sell subscriptions and thus poor review
New students and post-docs will have the top two listed problems(let's say ignorance) Editors and PIs are the cause for the latter two.
Fundamental ignorance on the part of authors, reviewers and editors of the importance of proper citation. Also a generalized failure of most professional programs to adequately train students.
And the fact that pubmed comes up in order of date. Important work from prior years requires looking through the whole list.
Overburdened or incompetent reviewers who fail to check manuscripts for missing cititations.
Students no longer know science history! Anything before 1990 is the dinosaur age. Much great seminal science is lost to their memory!! Awful for academia..
Probably none of the above. Signing pledges? Shades of the Catch 22 loyalty oath crusade. Random checks? Maybe, but hard to implement. Just raising awareness won't do much. We need peer intolerance.
I wrote someone about his recent review in which he did not cite the first observation: "I want that someone else will cite it" his answer was
Also the overwhelming volume of information today
Enhanced vigilance by the reviewers who should require insertion of appropriate, omitted references.
Enhanced vigilance by the reviewers who should require insertion of appropriate, omitted references.
poor reviewing be referees and editors
A mix. Journals: referees are focused in destroying or fully accepting the paper, without appreciating its position in its scientific context. Authors: they often simply don't know their field.
authors seem to think that the best way for their research to be published, it must seem more novel than it is
It seems that if it is not available on-line people spend less and less time trying to get a hold of the paper
Not only the lack of appreciation, but also a lack of knowledge.
online availability/subscription availability
Some journals limit the number of citations. For instance, Blood restricts citations to 50. I also see competing labs not citing each others work.
As a reviewer it is surprising to note the lack of citing references before 2000 which may not be modern enough and did not involve modern technology.
Journals that make articles available online for free are more likely to be read and cited than those that charge for articles.
For eg. journal word limits may be a problem (citations should be excluded)
Lack of online free access to published full-text articles (recent and archived).
this is a wide area for improvement
someone once told me "you can't build a career that way." (by citing relevant work of others).
Multiple papers describing similar results - only 1 is referenced.
New journals have appeared that publish manuscripts that have been rejected from the best peer-reviewed journals making it almost impossible to cite every single relevant paper.
Lack of appreciation the achilles heel of all the people.
The journal did not accept responsibliity. They only would accept a correction issued by the offending author which turns to be judga and party-
Usually I have found Journals not to worry too much about numbers of citations- even though they sometimes put restrictions on.
In some cases the limitation of references from the side of a journal raises a problem.
Journal policies that limit citation numbers also contribute
Sunlight is the best disenfectant. If the journals would customarily publish letters drawing attention to incomplete citations, most of this problem would be solved.
Sunlight is the best disenfectant. If the journals would customarily publish letters drawing attention to incomplete citations, most of this problem would be solved.
Many young scientist read only general reviews on their field. Some seem to consider that relevant biology started with Watson and Crick.
"Cut and dried" attitude to history of science and mathematics
Articles prepared for elementary and secondary school children are generally devoid of citation. It's time the students are taught the importance and methods of citation.
For many authors, if it does not show up in an electronic search (i.e., published in the last 30 years) it simply does not exist to them.
also, time and the fact that the literature is expanding rapidly; other may ahve approached the problem from an entirely different field
or, a better review process where reviwers are compensated (by their employers) for the time spent in review. right now, review time is stiem stolen from your 'real job'.
A lack of understanding the principles of citation. A lack of understand the concept of stealing ideas.
Citation practice could be improved by:
Replacement content
asking peer reviewers to do a more thorough check of the literature
knowing omission (for competitive reasons, in particular) should be considered research misconduct - a fraudulent misrepresentation of the state of the science
You say in your editorial in your May 2009 issue that "we need a code of practice for citation, that journals should adopt explicitly". Likely, an explicit adoption would be an improvement. However, doesn't a code of practice already exist? I was taught f
Referees can and should make editors and authors aware of poor citations. This should be cause to refuse acceptance.
as an editor I routinely do Pubmed searches to verify proper citation. ~5% fail this test
You must acknowledge that the act of citation is as much a rhetorical tool as it is a functional one.
Better reviewers.
Often authors seem to be the only person in the world to work on a specific field.
This is ultimately a problem with peer reviewers and editors who are not aware enough of the literature to know that someone is purposefully ignoring relevant publications.
Random checks? What are editors and review panels there for?
Attention to citations should become a normal part of the peer review process.
post-publication links to relevant citations and commentary
Policing of citation abuse should be the primary responsibility of the reviewer, requiring that reviewers be sufficeintly competent and informed in their field to fulfill this responsibility.
One problem is that with page and citation limits, some people take shortcuts of citing reviews. The authors have to balance keeping citation numbers down but not cheat anybody.
The gate keepers have to be the reviewers. They must be scholars who insist on proper citation practices. Who is in a better position? Editors should put the majority of the burden on their reviewers
The gate keepers have to be the reviewers. They must be scholars who insist on proper citation practices. Who is in a better position? Editors should put the majority of the burden on their reviewers
Carefully selecting reviewers making sure that they know the field and are impartial
Implementing a 'challenge' process could be messy but needed, and likely would require that authors give 'additional citations' in Supplemental material. But how else to enforce better practice?
Online supplemetary information (SI) is a waste of time. To deliberately ignore the original work, cite it in the SI. These refs are not picked up by Scopus or ISI ...just becomes junk.
The biggest problem is not failure to cite, but citations to papers that do not support the statement being made. Citation is broken, period.
Reviewers are assumed to be familiar with the subject of the article. They are the 'first line of defense' for catching citation omissions and should be rigorous in pointing out which citations are mis
I suggest to include a list of references as PubMed IDs, so all citations of a paper can be downloaded (at least as citations and URLs to pdfs) in bulk.
As a peer reviewer, I have frequently raised the issue of lack of citations necessary to place the current work in context.
Rather than authors rubber-stamping a toothless pledge, journals should state that poor citation is grounds for REJECTION of a manuscript. And list this criterion for reviewers.
Lower the threshold for publishing retractions, rebuttals, comments and corrections, of any kind, not only where there are accidental or deliberate errors in citations.
Reviewers have an obligation to point out poor citation practices. As a reviewer I've uncovered plagiarism (both self and of other's work) by simply doing my own literature search.
Lower the threshold for publishing retractions, rebuttals, comments and corrections, of any kind, not only where there are accidental or deliberate errors in citations.
Improving the quality of reviewers also. They should know the literature and check the references.
This happens even within labs as a PI can easily(legally) STEAL good ideas from junior scientists and pass them on as his/her own. As always the small guy has no defense/defenders.
Reviewer responsibility is very important, If Journal have to pay them , they will put more effort toward this issue, and this problem may be solved.
Awareness of the literature by editors and reviewers.
We already sign a literature awareness pledge for animal use. Why not for publication?
The only way to stop the problem is to check all pre-published research.
Journals restrict authors to 3 or 4 and then the rest as "et al." is also bad. Put the complete refs online, so that when you print it out, you will have that on record in your .pdf and printout!!!
I suppose the best thing to do is provide gentle feedback if they forget one of your articles.
Most important is raising awareness in my opinion.
Asking for a lower limit number of relevent publications. In this way the authors must acknowledge everyone relevent to the current published work. There reader will then choose the ones he is interesd
Editorial review in which they will insert the keywords of the manuscript
- Choosing the right reviewers - Encouraging reviewers to be critical with respect to the reference lists
honest authors
more opportunity to comment on papers on line.
Journals should require citation of primary literature rather than reviews, maybe leaving reviews for blanket introductory sentence at the beginning of a manuscript.
Online supplementary citations would relegate some citations to second class status. If a citation is relevant enough to mention, it should not be shunted out of view.
Perhaps informing the referees of complaints at the preprint stage of the paper could be useful. Of course this means that the authors must declare in the preprint to which journal it was submitted.
citing the offending article appropriately in subsequent publications
All except including additional citations in online supplementary material. In my opinion all supplementary materials should be eliminated. It's a malpractice introduced to bypass a correct writing.
Due to the increasing importance of citations in a scientist?s career, efforts should be made by both the authors and the reviewers to make sure that the reference list meets the criteria for publication and gives the credit to the correct
to be checked by both editorial offices and, especially, referees
Journals could carry out literature searches using keywords describing the submitted manuscript. If similar papers show up, the authors could be asked to address the issue during peer review.
I would oppose additional citations in online supplements. I believe that would actually decrease the "respect" that citations get. It is important to acknoweldge the work that has gone before.
People are stubborn and will probably not change their practices much, however journals shouldn't be compounding the issue by limiting the total number of citations per paper.
Hence, one needs to learn how to prioritize the important and relevant citations and to take a little more time when doing the literature searches.
Journals should add a section to the review request "Do the refererences adequately cite the literature." This might make the reviewers examine the issue more thoroughly.
Better oversight by editorial staff-given the technology we have today there is no excuse for not checking citations
Big problems: "plagiarizing" citations blindly- no teaching of rhetoric of citation; failure of prof. programs to teach/mentor prof writing.
Universal free access to full- text articles.
I have long worried that the work of women is less likely to be cited than the work of men - even given equally important findings.
There are supplementary data options for many journals - why not references?
But how to raise awareness? I suggest, better education of our trainees and better editorial practices (i.e., by reviewers and editors).
Raising awarenes of the issue and no feedback from the people on comments
Signing a pledge sounds good in principle, but no-one can be 100% up to date on the literature, even in a small field.
perhaps some published general guidelines. It is impossible to cite everybody, Lastly, get over it that you paper isn't cited. Also, there are political reasons to cite some authors. It's
Really allowing additional citations may help but engaging more openness in discussion of this after publication. Journals can confound then error by taking a poor response re Cell issue.
Please, no adding of citations into unsearchable, unindexable supplementary files.
increase the training and awareness during graduate work
If journal space is the limited, supplementary information may help.
Online sources to historic papers requires more due diligence effort
Articles prepared for elementary and secondary school children are generally devoid of citation.
This can improve only when the journal faces a penalty, which requires a jury process. Such a methodlogy is possible in this internet day.
As a reviewer I check references. Editors usually appreciate this. Too much emphasis on quickness of review and publication.
Run a page in every issue explaining the concept and process of proper citation. Explain that plagiarism is stealing ideas as well as exact phrasing. Explain correct secondary citation.
You say in your editorial in your May 2009 issue that "we need a code of practice for citation, that journals should adopt explicitly". Likely, an explicit adoption would be an improvement. However, doesn't a code of practice already exist? I was taught f
Referees can and should make editors and authors aware of poor citations. This should be cause to refuse acceptance.
as an editor I routinely do Pubmed searches to verify proper citation. ~5% fail this test
You must acknowledge that the act of citation is as much a rhetorical tool as it is a functional one.
Better reviewers.
Often authors seem to be the only person in the world to work on a specific field.
This is ultimately a problem with peer reviewers and editors who are not aware enough of the literature to know that someone is purposefully ignoring relevant publications.
Random checks? What are editors and review panels there for?
Attention to citations should become a normal part of the peer review process.
post-publication links to relevant citations and commentary
Policing of citation abuse should be the primary responsibility of the reviewer, requiring that reviewers be sufficeintly competent and informed in their field to fulfill this responsibility.
One problem is that with page and citation limits, some people take shortcuts of citing reviews. The authors have to balance keeping citation numbers down but not cheat anybody.
The gate keepers have to be the reviewers. They must be scholars who insist on proper citation practices. Who is in a better position? Editors should put the majority of the burden on their reviewers
The gate keepers have to be the reviewers. They must be scholars who insist on proper citation practices. Who is in a better position? Editors should put the majority of the burden on their reviewers
Carefully selecting reviewers making sure that they know the field and are impartial
Implementing a 'challenge' process could be messy but needed, and likely would require that authors give 'additional citations' in Supplemental material. But how else to enforce better practice?
Online supplemetary information (SI) is a waste of time. To deliberately ignore the original work, cite it in the SI. These refs are not picked up by Scopus or ISI ...just becomes junk.
The biggest problem is not failure to cite, but citations to papers that do not support the statement being made. Citation is broken, period.
Reviewers are assumed to be familiar with the subject of the article. They are the 'first line of defense' for catching citation omissions and should be rigorous in pointing out which citations are mis
I suggest to include a list of references as PubMed IDs, so all citations of a paper can be downloaded (at least as citations and URLs to pdfs) in bulk.
As a peer reviewer, I have frequently raised the issue of lack of citations necessary to place the current work in context.
Rather than authors rubber-stamping a toothless pledge, journals should state that poor citation is grounds for REJECTION of a manuscript. And list this criterion for reviewers.
Lower the threshold for publishing retractions, rebuttals, comments and corrections, of any kind, not only where there are accidental or deliberate errors in citations.
Reviewers have an obligation to point out poor citation practices. As a reviewer I've uncovered plagiarism (both self and of other's work) by simply doing my own literature search.
Lower the threshold for publishing retractions, rebuttals, comments and corrections, of any kind, not only where there are accidental or deliberate errors in citations.
Improving the quality of reviewers also. They should know the literature and check the references.
This happens even within labs as a PI can easily(legally) STEAL good ideas from junior scientists and pass them on as his/her own. As always the small guy has no defense/defenders.
Reviewer responsibility is very important, If Journal have to pay them , they will put more effort toward this issue, and this problem may be solved.
Awareness of the literature by editors and reviewers.
We already sign a literature awareness pledge for animal use. Why not for publication?
The only way to stop the problem is to check all pre-published research.
Journals restrict authors to 3 or 4 and then the rest as "et al." is also bad. Put the complete refs online, so that when you print it out, you will have that on record in your .pdf and printout!!!
I suppose the best thing to do is provide gentle feedback if they forget one of your articles.
Most important is raising awareness in my opinion.
Asking for a lower limit number of relevent publications. In this way the authors must acknowledge everyone relevent to the current published work. There reader will then choose the ones he is interesd
Editorial review in which they will insert the keywords of the manuscript
- Choosing the right reviewers - Encouraging reviewers to be critical with respect to the reference lists
honest authors
more opportunity to comment on papers on line.
Journals should require citation of primary literature rather than reviews, maybe leaving reviews for blanket introductory sentence at the beginning of a manuscript.
Online supplementary citations would relegate some citations to second class status. If a citation is relevant enough to mention, it should not be shunted out of view.
Perhaps informing the referees of complaints at the preprint stage of the paper could be useful. Of course this means that the authors must declare in the preprint to which journal it was submitted.
citing the offending article appropriately in subsequent publications
All except including additional citations in online supplementary material. In my opinion all supplementary materials should be eliminated. It's a malpractice introduced to bypass a correct writing.
Due to the increasing importance of citations in a scientist?s career, efforts should be made by both the authors and the reviewers to make sure that the reference list meets the criteria for publication and gives the credit to the correct
to be checked by both editorial offices and, especially, referees
Journals could carry out literature searches using keywords describing the submitted manuscript. If similar papers show up, the authors could be asked to address the issue during peer review.
I would oppose additional citations in online supplements. I believe that would actually decrease the "respect" that citations get. It is important to acknoweldge the work that has gone before.
People are stubborn and will probably not change their practices much, however journals shouldn't be compounding the issue by limiting the total number of citations per paper.
Hence, one needs to learn how to prioritize the important and relevant citations and to take a little more time when doing the literature searches.
Journals should add a section to the review request "Do the refererences adequately cite the literature." This might make the reviewers examine the issue more thoroughly.
Better oversight by editorial staff-given the technology we have today there is no excuse for not checking citations
Big problems: "plagiarizing" citations blindly- no teaching of rhetoric of citation; failure of prof. programs to teach/mentor prof writing.
Universal free access to full- text articles.
I have long worried that the work of women is less likely to be cited than the work of men - even given equally important findings.
There are supplementary data options for many journals - why not references?
But how to raise awareness? I suggest, better education of our trainees and better editorial practices (i.e., by reviewers and editors).
Raising awarenes of the issue and no feedback from the people on comments
Signing a pledge sounds good in principle, but no-one can be 100% up to date on the literature, even in a small field.
perhaps some published general guidelines. It is impossible to cite everybody, Lastly, get over it that you paper isn't cited. Also, there are political reasons to cite some authors. It's
Really allowing additional citations may help but engaging more openness in discussion of this after publication. Journals can confound then error by taking a poor response re Cell issue.
Please, no adding of citations into unsearchable, unindexable supplementary files.
increase the training and awareness during graduate work
If journal space is the limited, supplementary information may help.
Online sources to historic papers requires more due diligence effort
Articles prepared for elementary and secondary school children are generally devoid of citation.
This can improve only when the journal faces a penalty, which requires a jury process. Such a methodlogy is possible in this internet day.
As a reviewer I check references. Editors usually appreciate this. Too much emphasis on quickness of review and publication.
Run a page in every issue explaining the concept and process of proper citation. Explain that plagiarism is stealing ideas as well as exact phrasing. Explain correct secondary citation.
I have seen more ommissions of other's previous work. Claims that their new work is the "first report" of this item when it was published years ago by others
Competitors willfully exclude references to my work and no one, even other colleagues, can do anything about it. Until journal editors are willing to correct the problem, science will suffer.
I have learned to have a thick skin.
I have learned to have a thick skin.
We can anticipate a general 'defence' for using biased/selective citations: "I am limited to only have N references in my submission. I had to leave out many refs, unfortunately."
Most cases likely were due to naive omission. One case must be due to overt commission. My work advocating standardized use of COI for systematics was blatantly ignored in the key 2003 barcode paper.
I haven't been published yet.
In my experience, this has
I think my estimate is conservative.
I have published very little yet.
this has occurred primarily because others in the field lack the computer skills to replicate our methods. In contrast regulatory agencies such as FDA have accepted our approach.
For the record, I am also bothered when work of others is ignored, especially when this unfairly promotes the paper at fault.
BCL-2 (not novel or wrong) Nature 348 334 3,019 cites. BCL-2 (earlier and correct) Nature 335 440 2,087 cites
BCL-2 (not novel or wrong) Nature 348 334 3,019 cites. BCL-2 (earlier and correct) Nature 335 440 2,087 cites
the claim of having opened a new field has been lost thereby
Papers published in lower impact factor journals are presumed to be second rate and ignoring/disregarding them is easy.
Some people are very good about this. Others have a pattern of ignoring my work and those of other investigators.
My old stuff tends to be ignored more than my new stuff.
a paper in a high profile journal accompanied by a positive commentary has often not been cited in publications or in presentations in the field
Always although it contains rigorous proofs.
In one review it was written "some claim that" they did not cite me and few years later it was found that I was correct and they are not
A prominent scientist, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, repeatedly either did not cite, or cited incorrectly, my work on topoisomerases.
I found that - even after highlighting relevant (at times overlapping) prior art by others to very senior authors - these were continued to be ignored (so no talk about lapse or lack of memory)...
only a few big publications
This happens most when contradictory data do not fit with the author's paradigm.
Depends on the language: several of my papers, long and written in french, have been ignored.
I only have 1 first author paper, and it was recently published (Jan 2009, online). It has already been passed over for citations by the most recent articles, even though it was very much on topic.
Usually publications prior to 1980.
Changing fields means earlier work- even if still relevant- is often not cited
A researcher in my field has published a significant paper and has blatently ignored my previous work.
I have found more mpatents issued without mentioning prior art of some of my patents, knowing some of the companies and authors IMHO it is intentional. There are a handful of ethical innovators and i.
no feedback is given
A single author has repeatedly ignored our work
Im not sure if articles have actually 'ignored' my work. But miscites and misrepresentation of my work is more regular. Usually by competing authors. Sometimes I felt it has bordered on libel.
Nothing I am aware of
And deliberately.
Generally by "big guns" who apparently feel it is safe to appropriate the work of lesser workers because the journal editors will protect them. Only junior people ever get nailed.
Generally by "big guns" who apparently feel it is safe to appropriate the work of lesser workers because the journal editors will protect them. Only junior people ever get nailed.
Regulary names of reviewers are cited instead of scientist's who generated important ideas.