bioRxiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2020.12.10.419424

How accurate are citations of frequently cited papers in biomedical literature?

Pavlovic, V.·Weissgerber, T.·Stanisavljevic, D.·Pekmezovic, T.·Garovic, V.·Milic, N.·CITE investigators,
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Citations are an important, but often overlooked, part of every scientific paper. They allow the reader to trace the flow of evidence, serving as a gateway to relevant literature. Most scientists are aware of citations errors, but few appreciate the prevalence or consequences of these problems. The purpose of this study was to examine how often frequently cited papers in biomedical scientific literature are cited inaccurately. The study included an active participation of first authors of frequently cited papers; to first-hand verify the citations accuracy. The approach was to determine most cited original articles and their parent authors, that could be able to access, and identify, collect and review all citations of their original work. Findings from feasibility study, where we collected and reviewed 1,540 articles containing 2,526 citations of 14 most cited articles in which the 1st authors were affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine University of Belgrade, were further evaluated for external confirmation in an independent verification set of articles. Verification set included 4,912 citations identified in 2,995 articles that cited 13 most cited articles published by authors affiliated with the Mayo Clinic Division of Nephrology and Hypertension (Rochester, Minnesota, USA), whose research focus is hypertension and peripheral vascular disease. Most cited articles and their citations were determined according to SCOPUS database search. A citation was defined as being accurate if the cited article supported or was in accordance with the statement by citing authors. A multilevel regression model for binary data was used to determine predictors of inaccurate citations. At least one inaccurate citation was found in 11% and 15% of articles in the feasibility study and verification set, respectively, suggesting that inaccurate citations are common in biomedical literature. The main findings were similar in both sets. The most common problem was the citation of nonexistent findings (38.4%), followed by an incorrect interpretation of findings (15.4%). One fifth of inaccurate citations were due to "chains of inaccurate citations," in which inaccurate citations appeared to have been copied from previous papers. Reviews, longer time elapsed from publication to citation, and multiple citations were associated with higher chance of citation being inaccurate. Based on these findings, several actions that authors, mentors and journals can take to reduce citation inaccuracies and maintain the integrity of the scientific literature have been proposed.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Pavlovic, V., Weissgerber, T., Stanisavljevic, D., Pekmezovic, T., Garovic, V., Milic, N., CITE investigators,. 2020-12-10. How accurate are citations of frequently cited papers in biomedical literature?. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.10.419424

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2021

Inferring livestock movement networks from archived data to support infectious disease control in developing countries

The use of network analysis to support livestock disease control in low middle-income countries (LMICs) has historically been hampered by the cost of generating empirical data in the absence of animal movement recording schemes. To fill this gap, methods which exploit freely available demographic and archived molecular data can be used to generate livestock networks based on gravity and phylogeographic modelling techniques, respectively. However, questions remain on the performance of these methods in capturing the topology of empirical networks. Here, we compare output from these network methodologies to a network constructed from either empirical data or randomly generated data. To facilitate this comparison, the spread of infectious diseases was simulated, it is this evaluation that demonstrates their potential utility to inform robust livestock disease control strategies. The molecular network was the closest approximation to the empirical network, both in relation to topological and epidemic characteristics, whereas size of epidemics in the gravity network tended to be larger, better agreement across all three networks was observed when; a) total nodes infected, b) percentage infection take off were compared. These methods consistently identified the same important animal movement and trade hotspots as the empirical networks. We therefore consider this proof-of-concept that demographic data such as censuses and archived molecular data could be repurposed to inform livestock disease management in LMICs. Author summaryLive animal movements in Africa represent a significant risk of transmission and spread of infectious diseases in livestock populations, and therefore, have direct implications on the food security of the continent. Here we explore the potential utility of available data to support control strategies, by comparing movement networks inferred from such data i.e. census and pathogen molecular data using gravity modelling and phylogeography respectively. Their utility is evaluated by comparing their topology and disease spread characteristics to empirical live animal movement. Based on our results, we posit that archived data can be repurposed to support infectious disease control on the African continent.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2021

scite: a smart citation index that displays the context of citations and classifies their intent using deep learning

Citation indices are tools used by the academic community for research and research evaluation which aggregate scientific literature output and measure scientific impact by collating citation counts. Citation indices help measure the interconnections between scientific papers but fall short because they only display paper titles, authors, and the date of publications, and fail to communicate contextual information about why a citation was made. The usage of citations in research evaluation without due consideration to context can be problematic, if only because a citation that disputes a paper is treated the same as a citation that supports it. To solve this problem, we have used machine learning and other techniques to develop a "smart citation index" called scite, which categorizes citations based on context. Scite shows how a citation was used by displaying the surrounding textual context from the citing paper, and a classification from our deep learning model that indicates whether the statement provides supporting or disputing evidence for a referenced work, or simply mentions it. Scite has been developed by analyzing over 23 million full-text scientific articles and currently has a database of more than 800 million classified citation statements. Here we describe how scite works and how it can be used to further research and research evaluation.

scientific communication and education↗