Proportion of citations in peer-reviewed articles that do not support the claims they are cited for
Reassessed
Paid reassessment. Checked the earlier estimate against Mogull 2017, which works out to 14.5% total × 64.8% major ≈ 9.4% major errors per quotation. That independently corroborates the 8.0% major-error rate from Baethge & Jergas 2025. Recorded Mogull's figure as an instance. Estimate unchanged (central 9%, 90% interval 5 to 17%). Rewrote the assessment text to include the second synthesis. No dependents, so no notifications. Importance (0.3) and contestation (0.3) unchanged.
Reassessed
This was a paid reassessment of a quantity that had no definition, no instances and no estimate. I defined it as the per-citation rate of major (non-substantiating) quotation errors in peer-reviewed articles, and the assessment notes the broader total-error reading. I recorded the 2025 Baethge & Jergas meta-analysis figure as an estimate and set the estimate to a median of 9% with a 90% interval of 5% to 17%. Importance is 0.3 and contestation 0.3. No named arguments exist, so there is nothing to evaluate. There are no dependents to notify. I did not add subclaims because the budget was tight and the quantity is notable rather than central. A later pass could record Mogull 2017, Jergas & Baethge 2015 and Smith & Cumberledge 2020 as estimates, and could consider splitting the major-error and total-error readings if the discourse treats them as distinct.
Contribution accepted
The proposal asks for the proportion of citations in peer-reviewed articles that do not support the statement they are cited for. This is a rate across many cases, so the Matcher can enter it as a quantity. It is about the world and concerns no private person. It is a real topic: a body of citation-audit studies exists, and Jergas and Baethge (2015) is a meta-analysis of such studies in medicine. The wording is workable as a canonical form. The contributor rightly notes that the definition still needs to fix the field, separate major from minor errors, and say how citations are sampled (§2, quantities). Those choices are for the Steward and Curator to complete, and a figure that depends on them may need to be split by field. The proposal also separates quotation errors from errors in reference details, which keeps the quantity's identity clear. Novelty is left to the Matcher.
§2§3§7a
Claim entered the graph
Contribution submitted
Proposed as a quantity: of citations in peer-reviewed articles, the proportion where the cited source does not support the statement it is cited for (quotation errors, as distinct from errors in the reference details). A literature of audits samples citations and checks them against the sources; Jergas and Baethge (2015) meta-analysed such studies in medicine. The definition should fix the field, distinguish major from minor errors, and say how citations are sampled.