MEPS 408:299-303 (2010)  -  doi:10.3354/meps08587

AS WE SEE IT
One in four citations in marine biology papers is inappropriate

Peter A. Todd1,*, James R. Guest1, Junxiu Lu2, Loke Ming Chou1

1Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 14 Science Drive 4, Singapore 117543
2School of Biological Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, Australia

ABSTRACT: Citing sources that do not support the assertion being made can misinform readers, perpetuate mistakes and deny credit to the researchers who should have been acknowledged. To quantify citation fidelity in marine biology, we retrieved 198 papers from 2 recent issues of 33 marine biology journals. From each paper we randomly selected 1 citation, recovered the source material, and evaluated its appropriateness. We discovered that the assertion was ‘clearly supported’ by the citation in only 75.8% of cases, the support was ‘ambiguous’ in 10.6% of cases and the citation offered ‘no support’ to the original statement in 6.0% of cases. The remaining 7.6% of cases were classified as ‘empty’ (citations to secondary sources). We found no relationship between citation appropriateness and the position of the assertion in the paper, number of authors, number of references, article length and Journal Impact Factor. That 1 in 4 citations in marine biology should be viewed with scepticism is alarming and has important ramifications for both scholarship and bibliometrics.


KEY WORDS: Bibliometrics · Citation · Ecology · Impact factor · Marine biology · Performance indicators


Full text in pdf format 
Cite this article as: Todd PA, Guest JR, Lu J, Chou LM (2010) One in four citations in marine biology papers is inappropriate. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 408:299-303

Export citation: Endnote - Reference Manager
Mail this link - Contents Mailing Lists - RSS
- -