Posters

Referencing accuracy in ophthalmic literature: one decade later

Poster Details

First Author: T. Gout UNITED KINGDOM

Co Author(s):    E. Rostron   O. Stewart                 

Abstract Details

Purpose:

Assess progress of citation and quotation accuracy within ophthalmic literature.

Setting:

Referencing is an important foundation for structuring a scientific paper’s argument and acknowledging scientific contribution. Citation errors obstruct propagation of scientific research findings. While quotation errors misinform readers and degrade the scientific foundations of an author’s argument. Both hindrance the delivery of evidence based medicine.

Methods:

200 references were assessed in 10 ophthalmic journals. A random numbers table was used to select articles and references. Citations were assessed for title, authors, and journal descriptors. Quotations were graded as fully, partially, or not accurate. Two independent reviewers assessed citation and quotation accuracy. An arbitrator intervened in split decisions. Primary outcomes were comparable to a previous study 10 years ago enabling assessment of progress.

Results:

Citation error per journal had a mean of 3.5% with a range of 0-5%. Quotation error per journal had a mean of 6.5% with a range of 0-15%. A similar study of ophthalmic literature a decade ago reported mean citation error rate of 16% and mean quotation error rate of 25%. A Cochrane Review of biomedical journals reported a median citation error rate per journal of 38% with a range of 4-67% and a median quotation error rate per journal of 20% with a range of 0-50%.

Conclusions:

This study result demonstrate improvement in ophthalmic literature referencing accuracy over a decade. It also compares favourably to other biomedical literature.

Financial Disclosure:

NONE