Misquoting of Scientific Literature

Abstract

The theme of this editorial is about the accuracy and validity of references quoted in papers. My editorial on treatment-resistant depression (Darby, I. (2023), Treatment-resistant depression. Aust Dent J, 68: 221–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.13001) has been, somewhat surprisingly, quoted 3 times according to Prof. Scholar.Google. This was a chance finding and came in a more general search.

It was quoted in the World Journal of Psychiatry, Frontiers in Psychiatry, and BMC Pharmacology & Toxicology. So why did the authors quote this editorial and is it appropriate?

The editorial focused on esketamine and MDMA usage and that we don't know what the dental side effects are. Included were some details about mode of administration, but little of indications and metabolism. The first of the 3 papers quotes in relation to ‘quality of life and social function’ in the introduction to a clinical study on the use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in treatment-resistant depression using ECT and esketamine. The second in relation to disrupting irrational beliefs as part of the prelude to their study of the use of ‘Internet +’ in 100 subjects with depression and the third on elevated suicide mortality in an investigation of the side effects of esketamine therapy. None of these directly relates to the editorial.

Prof. Dr. Google suggests that as many as 9 out of 10 manuscripts have citation errors, either in the text or references. They are often misspelling of names, incorrect page numbers and, the focus of this editorial, ‘ghost’ citations. Mattiazzi et al. provide a more in-depth analysis making the interesting comment of negligence and expediency in compiling references (Mattiazzi A, Vila-Petroff M. Unveiling the ethical void: Bias in reference citations and its academic ramifications. Curr Res Physiol. 2024 Jul 26; 7:100130. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crphys.2024.100130. PMID: 39184379; PMCID: PMC11341931). They also make depressing comments about gender, region and status bias when quoting papers.

In general, there are a number of consequences related to misquotation including misleading readers into making erroneous conclusions, misleading findings, and confusion. It may suggest that a particular treatment is more efficacious, especially as significant findings are quoted much more often than non-significant findings. For a clinician, this may have detrimental clinical consequences when an incorrectly cited treatment is used, perhaps leading to patient harm. For example, and probably a poor one, when one paper says a particular endodontic file is much better is quoted, but the five others that state they break more easily are not.

So how does the reader know that the papers quoted in an article have been properly quoted? As with statistics (Darby, I. (2024), Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. Aust Dent J, 69: 161–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.13032) it comes down primarily to the authors and secondarily to the reviewers. There is also the suggestion of stricter editorial standards as well as the use of ‘transparency’ tools such as Citation Diversity Statements. I'm sure one of the uses of AI will be to check the accuracy of the citations quoted. But still the best way would be for the reader to check every single reference, but realistically who's going to do this? So, it is again trust in the process.

Thankfully misquoting the editorial was in the introduction and unlikely to cause any issues.

Note that some of the data quoted was AI generated during internet searches.

Ivan Darby: conceptualization, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing.

The author declares no conflicts of interest.