Receive the weekly sampler of posts and "Resource of the Week".
Subscribe »

Enter your
email address:

My Account »


Bookmark and Share

Testimonial?
If you find ResourceShelf useful, please supply a testimonial »








Home > ResourceBlog > Article

« All ResourceBlog Articles

 

Bookmark and Share   \"Feed\"

Friday, 3rd August 2007

Paper: Verification of Citations: Fawlty Towers

Verification of Citations: Fawlty Towers of Knowledge? (PDF; 314 KB)

The prevalence of faulty citations impedes the growth of scientific knowledge. Faulty citations include omissions of relevant papers, incorrect references, and quotation errors that misreport findings. We discuss key studies in these areas. We then examine citations to Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys, one of the most frequently cited papers from the Journal of Marketing Research, as an exploratory study to illustrate these issues. This paper is especially useful in testing for quotation errors because it provides specific operational recommendations on adjusting for nonresponse bias; therefore, it allows us to determine whether the citing papers properly used the findings. By any number of measures, those doing survey research fail to cite this paper and, presumably, make inadequate adjustments for nonresponse bias. Furthermore, even when the paper was cited, 49 of the 50 studies that we examined reported its findings improperly. The inappropriate use of statistical-significance testing led researchers to conclude that nonresponse bias was not present in 76 percent of the studies in our sample. Only one of the studies in the sample made any adjustment for it. Judging from the original paper, we estimate that the study researchers should have predicted nonresponse bias and adjusted for 148 variables.

In this case, the faulty citations seem to have arisen either because the authors did not read the original paper or because they did not fully understand its implications. To address the problem of omissions, we recommend that journals include a section on their websites to list all relevant papers that have been overlooked and show how the omitted paper relates to the published paper. In general, authors should routinely verify the accuracy of their sources by reading the cited papers. For substantive findings, they should attempt to contact the authors for confirmation or clarification of the results and methods. This would also provide them with the opportunity to enquire about other relevant references. Journal editors should require that authors sign statements that they have read the cited papers and, when appropriate, have attempted to verify the citations.

Source: Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, University of South Australia


Category:

Views: 391



blog comments powered by Disqus

« All ResourceBlog Articles

 

Read about the FreePint FamilyThe FreePint Family is a family of resources to help information workers be more effective, raise the value of information in their organisations and contribute to success.

'FreePint... provides most of my professional development because it won't come through work and [other resources] just don't cut it.'

Read about the FreePint Family »


Visit the FreePint ShopFreePint Shop: FreePint sells reports, resources and subscription products to support your information work and information-related decisions.

Latest: FreePint Volume: Critical Insight on Social Media 2012 (01 Feb 2012) | FUMSI Report: Folio on Conferences and Continuing Professional Development (26 Jan 2012) | FreePint Research Report: Information Governance Policies and Priorities (25 Jan 2012) | Docuticker Report: DocuTips on Health Literacy (19 Jan 2012) | VIP Magazine: 98 (18 Jan 2012)

Browse the FreePint Shop »


FUMSI ForumFUMSI Forum: Do you have a research question? Post it to the FUMSI Forum, where professionals share Q&A and useful tips on how to Find, Use, Manage and Share Information. It's free.

Latest FUMSI Forum postings: Most Shared Content on Finding Information (09 Feb 2012) | Times are changing - a FUMSI Editorial (09 Feb 2012) | [TIPPLE] eBook resources - Share (07 Feb 2012) | Most Shared Content on Sharing Information (01 Feb 2012) | Our own worst enemy? - a FUMSI Editorial (01 Feb 2012)

Visit the FUMSI Forum and post »


VIP LiveWireVIP LiveWire: Offers commentary on emerging news stories of interest to premium content users, vendors and industry insiders.

Latest VIP LiveWire postings: Compliance - it's not just financial (10 Feb 2012) | Social media and BRIC - new report (08 Feb 2012) | Reuters takes the social media pulse (08 Feb 2012) | How to deal with the tech-savvy customer? (08 Feb 2012) | More ways for employers to poke around (01 Feb 2012)

Visit the VIP LiveWire »






Subscribe

Subscribe to the ResourceShelf Newsletter and receive the weekly sampler of posts and Resource of the Week.

Find out more »

ResourceShelf sponsored by:

Article Categories

All Article Categories »

Archive

All Archives »