{"title":"Why citation accuracy matters in psychological science: A commentary on Marcus et al. (2025) and call to the field.","authors":"Cory L Cobb, Lawrence Watkins, Seth J Schwartz","doi":"10.1037/amp0001571","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Marcus et al. (2025) examined the prevalence of miscitation in amicus curiae (\"friend of the court\") briefs provided by the American Psychological Association (APA) to courts for the purpose of informing them about relevant scientific findings that may help guide decisions on legal cases. They found that 7% of citations in amicus briefs completely misrepresented prior research, and another 20% omitted key qualifiers of study findings. The purpose of the present commentary was to discuss miscitation in the context of amicus briefs, as well as in the broader context of psychological science. We argue that miscitation represents a potentially serious and questionable research practice that has implications for the field, as well as for applied extensions of psychology. Ultimately, it will be up to psychological scientists and the APA to prevent potentially harmful outcomes associated with miscitation by taking steps to ensure that prior work is accurately cited and reported. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":"80 7","pages":"992-993"},"PeriodicalIF":12.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Psychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001571","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Marcus et al. (2025) examined the prevalence of miscitation in amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs provided by the American Psychological Association (APA) to courts for the purpose of informing them about relevant scientific findings that may help guide decisions on legal cases. They found that 7% of citations in amicus briefs completely misrepresented prior research, and another 20% omitted key qualifiers of study findings. The purpose of the present commentary was to discuss miscitation in the context of amicus briefs, as well as in the broader context of psychological science. We argue that miscitation represents a potentially serious and questionable research practice that has implications for the field, as well as for applied extensions of psychology. Ultimately, it will be up to psychological scientists and the APA to prevent potentially harmful outcomes associated with miscitation by taking steps to ensure that prior work is accurately cited and reported. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍：
Established in 1946, American Psychologist® is the flagship peer-reviewed scholarly journal of the American Psychological Association. It publishes high-impact papers of broad interest, including empirical reports, meta-analyses, and scholarly reviews, covering psychological science, practice, education, and policy. Articles often address issues of national and international significance within the field of psychology and its relationship to society. Published in an accessible style, contributions in American Psychologist are designed to be understood by both psychologists and the general public.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
