{"id":130588,"date":"2023-07-14T00:05:20","date_gmt":"2023-07-14T04:05:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thecollegefix.com\/?p=130588"},"modified":"2023-07-13T13:44:11","modified_gmt":"2023-07-13T17:44:11","slug":"1-in-4-citations-in-leading-history-journals-are-inaccurate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thecollegefix.com\/1-in-4-citations-in-leading-history-journals-are-inaccurate\/","title":{"rendered":"Nearly 1 in 4 history journal citations are inaccurate: study"},"content":{"rendered":"

‘Due to research difficulties posed by some citation conventions in history journals, this number likely underestimates the actual prevalence of errors’<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Approximately 25 percent of citations in leading history journals were found to be inaccurate in a recent study<\/a> published by a trio of academic researchers.<\/p>\n

The researchers analyzed five of the top history journals and found that 24.27 percent of citations \u201cdo not substantiate the propositions for which they are cited.\u201d<\/p>\n

Study authors included Aaron Cumberledge, a visiting professor at the Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology in South Korea, his peer Benjamin Riley and Neal Smith. Cumberledge responded to College Fix<\/em> inquiries about the paper.<\/p>\n

The Fix<\/em> reviewed a copy of the paper published in Scientometrics<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The study stated that the error rate found is likely lower than the actual percentage of citation errors, concluding \u201c[d]ue to research difficulties posed by some citation conventions in history journals, this number likely underestimates the actual prevalence of errors.\u201d<\/p>\n

Cumberledge told The Fix<\/em> that the paper serves as a \u201cscientific analysis and quantification of the problem,\u201d and that \u201cdetermining the source of the problem is a highly speculative enterprise\u201d that \u201cmay be due to improper understandings of citation practices (which can be vague)\u201d or \u201cdeliberate malpractice.\u201d<\/p>\n

Cumberledge cautioned that although he does not have data to quantify the root cause of bad citation practices, he believes that \u201cthe main cause seems to be simple negligence.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cFor example, authors will sometimes quote the wrong number from a table or conflate two different points in their reference,\u201d he told\u00a0The Fix<\/em>. \u201cThey also sometimes appear to be copying erroneous information from a secondary source and copying the citation to the primary reference without having read the reference themselves.\u201d<\/p>\n

Cumberledge concluded to The Fix<\/em>, \u201cin short, if authors made a greater effort to be diligent in reading their references and accurately reporting their information, I think most quotation errors would be corrected.\u201d<\/p>\n

For specific solutions, Cumberledge and his colleagues suggested in the paper that increasing editorial reviewing and verification of references would help diminish the problem, but this is \u201can unrealistic solution that places a major burden on editorial staff.\u201d<\/p>\n

The study suggested citing with specific page numbers for each proposition stated to allow for easier review by editors.<\/p>\n

MORE:<\/strong> Editorial concern notes added to three Stanford president papers<\/a><\/p>\n

Despite the challenges faced in solving the quotation accuracy problem in history journals, the study maintained that the rate of citation errors continues to be a pressing problem across academic disciplines, which can create a sense of distrust in research.<\/p>\n

\u201c[T]he problem of quotation errors exists at roughly the same frequency in history journals as in journals for other academic disciplines,\u201d the researchers stated. \u201c[R]eaders should not be made to doubt the veracity of references, knowing one in four is likely incorrect.\u201d<\/p>\n

The research echoes concerns raised by Portland State University political scientist Bruce Gilley who published a series of essays on \u201cjunk citations<\/a>\u201d for Minding the Campus<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe reason why junk citations are a problem is because scholars are not being encouraged to go and read the stuff they are citing, tell the reader what they are finding, how it\u2019s done, and whether it\u2019s even replicable,\u201d Gilley previously told The Fix<\/em>. \u201cPeople think they can just throw out \u2018the research is very clear on this, the evidence is so clear,\u2019 but it is all built on junk citations.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cAcademics can’t complain that no one trusts them anymore when their own writing style sows the seeds of distrust,\u201d Gilley said.<\/p>\n

MORE:<\/strong> UNC research director cited for plagiarism and misconduct<\/a><\/p>\n

IMAGE: Antti Heikkinen\/Shutterstock<\/p>\n

\n