J Med Libr Assoc. 2024 Apr 1;112(2):133-139. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2024.1718. Epub 2024 May 22.
Libraries provide access to databases with auto-cite features embedded into the services; however, the accuracy of these auto-cite buttons is not very high in humanities and social sciences databases.
This case compares two biomedical databases, Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed, to see if either is reliable enough to confidently recommend to students for use when writing papers. A total of 60 citations were assessed, 30 citations from each citation generator, based on the top 30 articles in PubMed from 2010 to 2020.
Error rates were higher in Ovid MEDLINE than PubMed but neither database platform provided error-free references. The auto-cite tools were not reliable. Zero of the 60 citations examined were 100% correct. Librarians should continue to advise students not to rely solely upon citation generators in these biomedical databases.
图书馆提供了嵌入自动引用功能的数据库服务；然而，在人文和社会科学数据库中，这些自动引用按钮的准确性并不是很高。
本案例比较了两个生物医学数据库，Ovid MEDLINE 和 PubMed，以确定它们是否足够可靠，以便向学生推荐在撰写论文时使用。总共评估了 60 条引文，每条引文生成器 30 条引文，基于 2010 年至 2020 年 PubMed 中排名前 30 的文章。
Ovid MEDLINE 的错误率高于 PubMed，但两个数据库平台都没有提供无错误的参考文献。自动引用工具不可靠。在这 60 篇引文检查中，没有一篇是 100%正确的。图书馆员应继续建议学生不要仅依赖这些生物医学数据库中的引文生成器。
