Hansen M E, McIntire D D
Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas 75235-9071.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994 Sep;163(3):719-23. doi: 10.2214/ajr.163.3.8079876.
Errors in reference citation and use are common in the medical and scientific literature. The prevalence of such errors in the radiology literature has not been reported. We did a study to assess the accuracy and appropriateness of use of references cited in two general radiology journals.
All references cited in the June 1993 issues of the American Journal of Roentgenology and Radiology were numbered consecutively. Fifty references were chosen at random from each journal, and copies of the original publications were obtained from the medical library at our institution or through interlibrary loan. Each reference was studied for accuracy and appropriateness of its citation in the June 1993 journal article (the "index article"). Errors were classified as major or minor in each category. Data were analyzed with the SAS statistical package.
Forty-seven (94%) of 50 references were obtained from AJR, and 48 (96%) of 50 from Radiology. Of the 47 from the AJR, one (2%) had a major error and 21 (45%) had a minor error in accuracy. Of the 48 from Radiology, two (4%) had a major error and 11 (23%) had a minor error in accuracy. These values were significantly different for minor errors (p = .0188), but not for major ones (p = 1.000). When we adjusted for index article type, error rates for the two journals were not significantly different (p = .0612). We found four major errors (9%) and two minor errors (4%) in appropriateness of citation in the AJR references we studied. Three references (6%) from Radiology contained major errors in appropriateness of use; we found no minor errors of that type. These values were not significantly different (p = .232 for minor errors; p = .709 for major errors). One error in accuracy prevented location of the original reference. Errors were not related to the number of references cited in an index article (p = .528 for accuracy; p = .092 for appropriateness).
The rate of minor errors in accuracy of references is fairly high in the two journals studied and is comparable to rates previously reported for other types of journals. The rate of major errors in accuracy of references is slightly lower than rates for other types of journals. The percentage of cited references that could not be located was also smaller than in previous reports. Errors in citation appropriateness were less common as well. Given the small number of errors that prevented references from being located, significant expenditure of time and money by journal staff members in checking references is probably not justified. However, authors should be encouraged to exercise greater care in checking all of their references for both accuracy and appropriateness of use. Differences in error rates between AJR and Radiology may have resulted in part from the random sampling method, which produced different mixtures of index articles for the two journals.
参考文献引用及使用错误在医学和科学文献中很常见。放射学文献中此类错误的发生率尚未见报道。我们开展了一项研究，以评估两种普通放射学期刊中参考文献引用的准确性和恰当性。
1993年6月《美国放射学杂志》和《放射学》中引用的所有参考文献都进行了连续编号。从每种期刊中随机选取50篇参考文献，并从我们机构的医学图书馆或通过馆际互借获取原始出版物的副本。对每篇参考文献在1993年6月期刊文章（“索引文章”）中的引用准确性和恰当性进行研究。在每个类别中，错误被分为重大错误或轻微错误。使用SAS统计软件包对数据进行分析。
50篇参考文献中有47篇（94%）来自《美国放射学杂志》，50篇中有48篇（96%）来自《放射学》。在来自《美国放射学杂志》的47篇参考文献中，1篇（2%）存在重大错误，21篇（45%）存在准确性方面的轻微错误。在来自《放射学》的48篇参考文献中，2篇（4%）存在重大错误，11篇（23%）存在准确性方面的轻微错误。这些值在轻微错误方面有显著差异（p = 0.0188），但在重大错误方面无显著差异（p = 1.000）。当我们对索引文章类型进行调整后，两种期刊的错误率无显著差异（p = 0.0612）。在我们研究的《美国放射学杂志》参考文献中，发现4篇（9%）存在引用恰当性方面的重大错误和2篇（4%）存在轻微错误。来自《放射学》的3篇参考文献（6%）在使用恰当性方面存在重大错误；我们未发现该类型的轻微错误。这些值无显著差异（轻微错误p = 0.232；重大错误p = 0.709）。一处准确性错误导致无法找到原始参考文献。错误与索引文章中引用的参考文献数量无关（准确性p = 0.528；恰当性p = 0.092）。
在所研究的两种期刊中，参考文献准确性方面的轻微错误发生率相当高，与先前报道的其他类型期刊的发生率相当。参考文献准确性方面的重大错误发生率略低于其他类型期刊。无法找到的引用参考文献的百分比也低于先前报道。引用恰当性方面的错误也较少见。鉴于因错误而无法找到参考文献的数量较少，期刊工作人员花费大量时间和金钱检查参考文献可能不合理。然而，应鼓励作者在检查所有参考文献的准确性和使用恰当性时更加谨慎。《美国放射学杂志》和《放射学》之间错误率的差异可能部分是由于随机抽样方法，该方法为两种期刊产生了不同的索引文章组合。
