- Email: [email protected]
The accuracy of references in five sport science journals
Science & Sports (2015) 30, e31—e33
Disponible en ligne sur
ScienceDirect www.sciencedirect.com
BRIEF NOTE
The accuracy of references in five sport science journals L’exactitude des références dans cinq revues spécialisées en sciences du sport M. Zasa a,b,∗ a
Department of anesthesiology, critical care, pain medicine, University of Parma, Azienda Ospedaliero—Universitaria, via Gramsci 14, 43100 Parma, Italy b Associazione Medico Sportiva FMSI di Parma, Parma, Italy Received 20 February 2013; accepted 21 October 2014 Available online 7 November 2014
KEYWORDS Bibliography; Research; Journal article
MOTS CLÉS Bibliographie ; Recherche ; Article de revue
∗
Summary Introduction. — To determine the accuracy of references in sport science journals, 100 random references from 2009—2011 volumes of five sport science journals were examined. Summary of facts. — The overall error rate was 12%. Authors’ names were most commonly mistaken (6.5%), followed by journal title (3.5%), article title (2%), pages number (1%), and year of publication (0.5%). Journal of Applied Physiology had the lowest error rate (2.5%), followed by Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews (7.5%), American Journal of Sports Medicine (10%), Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise (17.5%) and Sports Medicine (22.5%). Conclusion. — Although not exempt from mistakes, sport science journals showed reassuring results if compared with other medical specialties. © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Résumé Introduction. — Pour déterminer l’exactitude des références dans les revues en sciences sportives, ont été examinées 100 références aléatoires de 2009 à 2011 de cinq revues de sciences du sport. Synthèse des faits. — Le taux d’erreurs global trouvé était de 12 %. Les noms des auteurs sont le plus confondus (6,5 %), suivis par les titres des revues (3,5 %), les titres des articles (2 %), les numéros des pages (1 %), et l’année de publication (0,5 %). Le Journal of Applied Physiology a le plus faible taux d’erreurs (2,5 %), suivi par Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews (7,5 %), American
Correspondence. E-mail address: [email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2014.10.007 0765-1597/© 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
e32
M. Zasa Journal of Sports Medicine (10 %), Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise (17,5 %) et Sports Medicine (22,5 %). Conclusion. — Même si elles ne sont pas exemptes de fautes, les revues en sciences sportives ont montré des résultats rassurants si on les compare avec d’autres spécialités médicales. © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.
1. Main Text In order to support effectively the scientific debate, contents of scientific journals should be accurate and complete; furthermore, they have not to mislead the reader. With regard to this issue, references provide important background information and allow researchers to compare studies. Therefore, authors submitting their articles are requested to carefully check citations and journals themselves, and perform checks on material accepted for publication. However, despite time and resources spent, mistakes in reference lists are a common occurrence. Previous studies have extensively examined the accuracy of references in the journals of several medical specialties [1—5]. However, no reports regarding sport science literature have been published. The present study was therefore led to calculate an error rate for citations in sport science literature and to identify bibliographic elements most likely to be erroneous. In February 2012, Journal Citation Reports (Institute for Scientific Information, Thomson Scientific, New York, USA) was accessed to identify the five sport science journals with the highest impact factor value. Therefore, the following journals were examined: Sports Medicine, Journal of Applied Physiology, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, American Journal of Sports Medicine. Using a random-number generator, 1 20 articles published in the last three years were identified from each journal; for each article, two references were then randomly1 selected. A total of 100 references were therefore examined. Citations were reviewed with regard to six standard elements of bibliographic citation: authors (including correct number, order, initials, and spelling), article title, journal title (including proper Index Medicus abbreviation), volume number, page numbers, and year. A PubMed search was led to verify citations’ accuracy. Punctuation misreports and spelling mistakes due to British/American English differences were not taken into account. Data are presented as frequencies (% overall) and by element for each journal. Twenty-one (12%) of all references examined contained at least one error (Table 1); three (1.5%) contained two mistakes. Table 1 shows the distribution of errors among
1 Random sequence generator, available at http://random.org/ sequences/; last accessed 18/02/2012.
Table 1
Number of errors per citation.
Number of errors per citation
Frequency
Percent
0 1 2 Total
176 21 3 200
88 10.5 1.5 100
bibliographic elements: authors’ names were most commonly mistaken (6.5%), followed by journal title (3.5%), article title (2%), pages number (1%), and year of publication (0.5%). No wrong volume number was detected. Error rates by journal ranged from 2.5% to 22.5% (Table 2). Journals’ distribution of errors among bibliographic elements are reported in Table 2. To my knowledge, the present report is the first to evaluate the accuracy of references in sport science literature. A 12% error rate in examined journals represents an encouraging result: in fact, studies analysing references accuracy in other medical specialties detected higher rates of misreports [1—5]. It is important to note that citation errors may perpetuate themselves, so that once entered into literature they can be difficult to eradicate. An interesting example of mistake perpetuation is represented by a 1887 Czech-language article on dysentery, titled ‘‘O Uplavici’’. Unfortunately, the Czech title was confused with the author’s name, so that the article has been cited for many years reporting Dr. O. Uplavici as the author. The mistake was revealed only 50 years later by Dobell [6]. Broadly speaking, it is commonly agreed that accuracy is primarily responsibility of the author. Once the author has verified the accuracy of citations, further checks should be performed by editors, by verification of all or a sample of them from each article accepted for publication. In order to simplify references’ check, proper computer software for reference management may be routinely used. A limitation of the present study is represented by the use of PubMed as a primary source to verify citations’ accuracy. A check of original publications would have been methodologically more rigorous but unfortunately not all original publications could be accessed from this institution. In conclusion, references’ accuracy is of paramount importance in scientific literature. Both authors and editors should do their best to avoid misreports, thus supporting authors’ credibility and preserving scientific literature integrity. Although not exempt from mistakes, sport science
Accuracy of references in sport science journals
e33
Table 2
Citation errors by journal.
Element
Sports Medicine (n = 40)
J Appl Physiol (n = 40)
Med Sc Sport Exerc (n = 40)
Exerc Sport Sci Rev (n = 40)
Am J Sports Med (n = 40)
Combined (n = 200)
Author Title Journal Volume Page numbers Year Any error
5 1 4 0 0 1 9
0 0 1 0 0 0 1
5 1 0 0 1 0 7
2 0 2 0 0 0 3
1 2 0 0 1 0 4
13 4 7 0 2 1 24
(12.5%) (2.5%) (10%) (0%) (0%) (2.5%) (22.5%)
(0%) (0%) (2.5%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (2.5%)
(12.5%) (2.5%) (0%) (0%) (2.5%) (0%) (17.5%)
journals showed reassuring results if compared with other medical specialties.
Disclosure of interest The author declares that he has no conflicts of interest concerning this article.
References [1] Al-Benna S, Rajgarhia P, Ahmed S, Sheikh Z. Accuracy of references in burns journals. Burns 2009;35:677—80.
(5%) (0%) (5%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (7.5%)
(2.5%) (5%) (0%) (0%) (2.5%) (0%) (10%)
(6.5%) (2%) (3.5%) (0%) (1%) (0.5%) (12%)
[2] Awrey J, Inaba K, Barmparas G, Recinos G, Teixeira PGR, Chan LS, et al. Reference accuracy in the general surgery literature. World J Surg 2011;35:475—9. [3] Gosling CM, Cameron M, Gibbons PF. Referencing and quotation accuracy in four manual therapy journals. Man Ther 2004;9:36—40. [4] McLellan MF, Case LD, Barnett MC. Trust, but verify. The accuracy of references in four anesthesia journals. Anesthesiology 1992;77:185—8. [5] Panduranga C, Kirtilaxmi KB. Accuracy of references in Journal of Cytology. J Cytol 2011;28:238—40. [6] Dobell C. Dr O. Uplavici (1887—1938). Parasitology 1938;30: 239—41.
Disponible en ligne sur
ScienceDirect www.sciencedirect.com
BRIEF NOTE
The accuracy of references in five sport science journals L’exactitude des références dans cinq revues spécialisées en sciences du sport M. Zasa a,b,∗ a
Department of anesthesiology, critical care, pain medicine, University of Parma, Azienda Ospedaliero—Universitaria, via Gramsci 14, 43100 Parma, Italy b Associazione Medico Sportiva FMSI di Parma, Parma, Italy Received 20 February 2013; accepted 21 October 2014 Available online 7 November 2014
KEYWORDS Bibliography; Research; Journal article
MOTS CLÉS Bibliographie ; Recherche ; Article de revue
∗
Summary Introduction. — To determine the accuracy of references in sport science journals, 100 random references from 2009—2011 volumes of five sport science journals were examined. Summary of facts. — The overall error rate was 12%. Authors’ names were most commonly mistaken (6.5%), followed by journal title (3.5%), article title (2%), pages number (1%), and year of publication (0.5%). Journal of Applied Physiology had the lowest error rate (2.5%), followed by Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews (7.5%), American Journal of Sports Medicine (10%), Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise (17.5%) and Sports Medicine (22.5%). Conclusion. — Although not exempt from mistakes, sport science journals showed reassuring results if compared with other medical specialties. © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Résumé Introduction. — Pour déterminer l’exactitude des références dans les revues en sciences sportives, ont été examinées 100 références aléatoires de 2009 à 2011 de cinq revues de sciences du sport. Synthèse des faits. — Le taux d’erreurs global trouvé était de 12 %. Les noms des auteurs sont le plus confondus (6,5 %), suivis par les titres des revues (3,5 %), les titres des articles (2 %), les numéros des pages (1 %), et l’année de publication (0,5 %). Le Journal of Applied Physiology a le plus faible taux d’erreurs (2,5 %), suivi par Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews (7,5 %), American
Correspondence. E-mail address: [email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2014.10.007 0765-1597/© 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
e32
M. Zasa Journal of Sports Medicine (10 %), Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise (17,5 %) et Sports Medicine (22,5 %). Conclusion. — Même si elles ne sont pas exemptes de fautes, les revues en sciences sportives ont montré des résultats rassurants si on les compare avec d’autres spécialités médicales. © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.
1. Main Text In order to support effectively the scientific debate, contents of scientific journals should be accurate and complete; furthermore, they have not to mislead the reader. With regard to this issue, references provide important background information and allow researchers to compare studies. Therefore, authors submitting their articles are requested to carefully check citations and journals themselves, and perform checks on material accepted for publication. However, despite time and resources spent, mistakes in reference lists are a common occurrence. Previous studies have extensively examined the accuracy of references in the journals of several medical specialties [1—5]. However, no reports regarding sport science literature have been published. The present study was therefore led to calculate an error rate for citations in sport science literature and to identify bibliographic elements most likely to be erroneous. In February 2012, Journal Citation Reports (Institute for Scientific Information, Thomson Scientific, New York, USA) was accessed to identify the five sport science journals with the highest impact factor value. Therefore, the following journals were examined: Sports Medicine, Journal of Applied Physiology, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, American Journal of Sports Medicine. Using a random-number generator, 1 20 articles published in the last three years were identified from each journal; for each article, two references were then randomly1 selected. A total of 100 references were therefore examined. Citations were reviewed with regard to six standard elements of bibliographic citation: authors (including correct number, order, initials, and spelling), article title, journal title (including proper Index Medicus abbreviation), volume number, page numbers, and year. A PubMed search was led to verify citations’ accuracy. Punctuation misreports and spelling mistakes due to British/American English differences were not taken into account. Data are presented as frequencies (% overall) and by element for each journal. Twenty-one (12%) of all references examined contained at least one error (Table 1); three (1.5%) contained two mistakes. Table 1 shows the distribution of errors among
1 Random sequence generator, available at http://random.org/ sequences/; last accessed 18/02/2012.
Table 1
Number of errors per citation.
Number of errors per citation
Frequency
Percent
0 1 2 Total
176 21 3 200
88 10.5 1.5 100
bibliographic elements: authors’ names were most commonly mistaken (6.5%), followed by journal title (3.5%), article title (2%), pages number (1%), and year of publication (0.5%). No wrong volume number was detected. Error rates by journal ranged from 2.5% to 22.5% (Table 2). Journals’ distribution of errors among bibliographic elements are reported in Table 2. To my knowledge, the present report is the first to evaluate the accuracy of references in sport science literature. A 12% error rate in examined journals represents an encouraging result: in fact, studies analysing references accuracy in other medical specialties detected higher rates of misreports [1—5]. It is important to note that citation errors may perpetuate themselves, so that once entered into literature they can be difficult to eradicate. An interesting example of mistake perpetuation is represented by a 1887 Czech-language article on dysentery, titled ‘‘O Uplavici’’. Unfortunately, the Czech title was confused with the author’s name, so that the article has been cited for many years reporting Dr. O. Uplavici as the author. The mistake was revealed only 50 years later by Dobell [6]. Broadly speaking, it is commonly agreed that accuracy is primarily responsibility of the author. Once the author has verified the accuracy of citations, further checks should be performed by editors, by verification of all or a sample of them from each article accepted for publication. In order to simplify references’ check, proper computer software for reference management may be routinely used. A limitation of the present study is represented by the use of PubMed as a primary source to verify citations’ accuracy. A check of original publications would have been methodologically more rigorous but unfortunately not all original publications could be accessed from this institution. In conclusion, references’ accuracy is of paramount importance in scientific literature. Both authors and editors should do their best to avoid misreports, thus supporting authors’ credibility and preserving scientific literature integrity. Although not exempt from mistakes, sport science
Accuracy of references in sport science journals
e33
Table 2
Citation errors by journal.
Element
Sports Medicine (n = 40)
J Appl Physiol (n = 40)
Med Sc Sport Exerc (n = 40)
Exerc Sport Sci Rev (n = 40)
Am J Sports Med (n = 40)
Combined (n = 200)
Author Title Journal Volume Page numbers Year Any error
5 1 4 0 0 1 9
0 0 1 0 0 0 1
5 1 0 0 1 0 7
2 0 2 0 0 0 3
1 2 0 0 1 0 4
13 4 7 0 2 1 24
(12.5%) (2.5%) (10%) (0%) (0%) (2.5%) (22.5%)
(0%) (0%) (2.5%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (2.5%)
(12.5%) (2.5%) (0%) (0%) (2.5%) (0%) (17.5%)
journals showed reassuring results if compared with other medical specialties.
Disclosure of interest The author declares that he has no conflicts of interest concerning this article.
References [1] Al-Benna S, Rajgarhia P, Ahmed S, Sheikh Z. Accuracy of references in burns journals. Burns 2009;35:677—80.
(5%) (0%) (5%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (7.5%)
(2.5%) (5%) (0%) (0%) (2.5%) (0%) (10%)
(6.5%) (2%) (3.5%) (0%) (1%) (0.5%) (12%)
[2] Awrey J, Inaba K, Barmparas G, Recinos G, Teixeira PGR, Chan LS, et al. Reference accuracy in the general surgery literature. World J Surg 2011;35:475—9. [3] Gosling CM, Cameron M, Gibbons PF. Referencing and quotation accuracy in four manual therapy journals. Man Ther 2004;9:36—40. [4] McLellan MF, Case LD, Barnett MC. Trust, but verify. The accuracy of references in four anesthesia journals. Anesthesiology 1992;77:185—8. [5] Panduranga C, Kirtilaxmi KB. Accuracy of references in Journal of Cytology. J Cytol 2011;28:238—40. [6] Dobell C. Dr O. Uplavici (1887—1938). Parasitology 1938;30: 239—41.