StructureIn 1 claim's map0 sources downstream across 1 claim
EvidenceNot yet read
ReviewsNot reviewed
Examinations
None recorded. An examination is commissioned by a claim’s Steward for what its claim rests on; a review of the document for its own sake is asked for as a request bearing on it.
Text176 passages · 1 marked
No examination yetMarked passage
Skip to main content0 passages
Advertisement0 passages
PLOS One0 passages
Publish0 passages
Submissions0 passages
Getting Started0 passages
Submission Guidelines0 passages
Figures0 passages
Tables0 passages
Supporting Information0 passages
LaTeX0 passages
What We Publish0 passages
Preprints0 passages
Revising Your Manuscript0 passages
Submit Now0 passages
Calls for Papers0 passages
Policies0 passages
Best Practices in Research Reporting0 passages
Human Subjects Research0 passages
Animal Research0 passages
Competing Interests0 passages
Disclosure of Funding Sources0 passages
Licenses and Copyright0 passages
Data Availability0 passages
Complementary Research0 passages
Materials, Software and Code Sharing0 passages
Ethical Publishing Practice0 passages
Authorship0 passages
Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions0 passages
Manuscript Review and Publication0 passages
Criteria for Publication0 passages
Editorial and Peer Review Process0 passages
Editor Center0 passages
Guidelines for Reviewers0 passages
Accepted Manuscripts0 passages
Comments0 passages
Submit Your Manuscript1 passage
Learn More0 passages
Submit Now0 passages
About0 passages
Why Publish with PLOS ONE0 passages
Journal Information0 passages
Staff Editors0 passages
Editorial Board0 passages
Section Editors0 passages
Advisory Groups0 passages
Find and Read Articles0 passages
Publishing Information0 passages
Publication Fees0 passages
Press and Media0 passages
Contact0 passages
Browse5 passages
Loading metrics0 passages
Open Access0 passages
Peer-reviewed0 passages
Research Article1 passage
Scott A. Mogull6 passages
Writing – review & editing5 passages
Scott A. Mogull1 passage
Published: September 14, 20171 passage
Article0 passages
Authors0 passages
Metrics0 passages
Comments0 passages
Media Coverage0 passages
Reader Comments0 passages
Figures0 passages
Figures0 passages
Abstract3 passages · 1 marked
Previous reviews estimated that approximately 20 to 25% of assertions cited from original research articles, or “facts,” are inaccurately quoted in the medical literature. These reviews noted that the original studies were dissimilar and only began to compare the methods of the original studies. The aim of this review is to examine the methods of the original studies and provide a more specific rate of incorrectly cited assertions, or quotation errors, in original research articles published in medical journals. Additionally, the estimate of quotation errors calculated here is based on the ratio of quotation errors to quotations examined (a percent) rather than the more prevalent and weighted metric of quotation errors to the references selected. Overall, this resulted in a lower estimate of the quotation error rate in original medical research articles. A total of 15 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the primary quantitative analysis. Quotation errors were divided into two categories: content ("factual") or source (improper indirect citation) errors. Content errors were further subdivided into major and minor errors depending on the degree that the assertion differed from the original source. The rate of quotation errors recalculated here is 14.5% (10.5% to 18.6% at a 95% confidence interval). These content errors are predominantly, 64.8% (56.1% to 73.5% at a 95% confidence interval), major errors or cited assertions in which the referenced source either fails to substantiate, is unrelated to, or contradicts the assertion. Minor errors, which are an oversimplification, overgeneralization, or trivial inaccuracies, are 35.2% (26.5% to 43.9% at a 95% confidence interval). Additionally, improper secondary (or indirect) citations, which are distinguished from calculations of quotation accuracy, occur at a rate of 10.4% (3.4% to 17.5% at a 95% confidence interval).