Burden of proof: combating inaccurate citation in biomedical literature
BMJ 2023; 383 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076441 (Published 06 November 2023) Cite this as: BMJ 2023;383:e076441
- Nicholas Peoples, MD student1,
- Truls Østbye, vice chair (research) and professor2,
- Lijing L Yan, professor and head of non-communicable disease research3
- 1Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
- 2Family Medicine and Community Health, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
- 3Global Health Research Center, Duke Kunshan University, Kunshan, Jiangsu Province, China
- Correspondence to: nicholas.peoples@bcm.edu
Key messages
Up to 25% of all citations in the general scientific literature are inaccurate and mislead physicians, academics, and policy makers
The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) powered large language models such as ChatGPT has the potential to both enable and mitigate inaccurate citation on a scale not previously possible
Researchers need new strategies to ensure that scientific references function as an accurate web of knowledge
We make the case that peer reviewed journals consider adopting a required statement on the integrity of cited literature, using the adoption of required conflict of interest statements as a proof of concept
Even without a name, it is a devil we all know: an article cites a source that does not support the statement in question, or, more commonly, the initial reference sends the reader down a rabbit hole of references, the bottom of which is difficult to find and interpret. This causes two problems. Firstly, it may propagate data that are false, misinterpreted, or both, spurring “academic urban legends” that become circulated as truth.1 This delays true results from reaching the literature and allows incorrect ideas to masquerade as facts. Second, it undermines respect for the process of literature review, effacing the foundation of good scientific inquiry into a mere box ticking exercise. This cheapens the value of background and discussion sections in scholarly articles and encourages trainees and young investigators to practise sloppy research.
These errors might be especially problematic for doctors and the general public, “who are not focused on the scientific study of a narrow research topic and thus are less prone to identify rhetorically misleading statements or …
Log in
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
Subscribe from £173 *
Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.
* For online subscription
Access this article for 1 day for:
£38 / $45 / €42 (excludes VAT)
You can download a PDF version for your personal record.