Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Journal of Epidemiology 11/2018

06.10.2018 | COMMENTARY

Massive citations to misleading methods and research tools: Matthew effect, quotation error and citation copying

verfasst von: John P. A. Ioannidis

Erschienen in: European Journal of Epidemiology | Ausgabe 11/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Excerpt

Research methods and tools comprise a lion’s share among the most cited papers across science [1]. Methodological tools are essential to make discoveries, assess them, organize our knowledge, and understand which information is valid and useful. Many methods and research tools are proposed, but few become widely utilized. These are not always the best. For example, null-hypothesis significance testing with reporting of p-values is embedded in millions of papers [2], despite being a poor inferential method for most [3]. The factors that shape which methodological paper gets widely cited are poorly known. However, perhaps methods that are simple and easy to use (or misuse), and those that address major needs are more prone to become popular. Conversely, esoteric and convoluted tools, those that are not readily practicable, and those that have relevance only to rare circumstances are unlikely to become citation classics. …
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Van Noorden R, Maher B, Nuzzo R. The top 100 papers. Nature. 2014;514(7524):550–3.CrossRef Van Noorden R, Maher B, Nuzzo R. The top 100 papers. Nature. 2014;514(7524):550–3.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Chavalarias D, Wallach JD, Li AH, Ioannidis JP. Evolution of reporting P values in the biomedical literature, 1990–2015. JAMA. 2016;315(11):1141–8.CrossRef Chavalarias D, Wallach JD, Li AH, Ioannidis JP. Evolution of reporting P values in the biomedical literature, 1990–2015. JAMA. 2016;315(11):1141–8.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Merton RK. The Matthew effect in science: the reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science. 1968;159(3810):56–63.CrossRef Merton RK. The Matthew effect in science: the reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science. 1968;159(3810):56–63.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Wetterer JK. Quotation error, citation copying, and ant extinctions in Madeira. Scientometrics. 2006;67:351–72.CrossRef Wetterer JK. Quotation error, citation copying, and ant extinctions in Madeira. Scientometrics. 2006;67:351–72.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Simkin MV, Roychowdhury VP. Read before you cite! Complex Syst. 2003;14:269–74. Simkin MV, Roychowdhury VP. Read before you cite! Complex Syst. 2003;14:269–74.
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-406 analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:603–5.CrossRef Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-406 analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:603–5.CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Hartling L, Milne A, Hamm MP, Vandermeer B, Ansari M, Tsertsvadze A, et al. Testing the Newcastle Ottawa scale showed low reliability between individual reviewers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(9):982–93.CrossRef Hartling L, Milne A, Hamm MP, Vandermeer B, Ansari M, Tsertsvadze A, et al. Testing the Newcastle Ottawa scale showed low reliability between individual reviewers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(9):982–93.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Lo CK, Mertz D, Loeb M. Newcastle–Ottawa scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:45.CrossRef Lo CK, Mertz D, Loeb M. Newcastle–Ottawa scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:45.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Margulis AV, Pladevall M, Riera-Guardia N, Varas-Lorenzo C, Hazell L, Berkman ND, et al. Quality assessment of observational studies in a drug-safety systematic review, comparison of two tools: the Newcastle–Ottawa scale and the RTI item bank. Clin Epidemiol. 2014;6:359–68.CrossRef Margulis AV, Pladevall M, Riera-Guardia N, Varas-Lorenzo C, Hazell L, Berkman ND, et al. Quality assessment of observational studies in a drug-safety systematic review, comparison of two tools: the Newcastle–Ottawa scale and the RTI item bank. Clin Epidemiol. 2014;6:359–68.CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Ioannidis JP, Lau J. Can quality of clinical trials and meta-analyses be quantified? Lancet. 1998;352(9128):590–1.CrossRef Ioannidis JP, Lau J. Can quality of clinical trials and meta-analyses be quantified? Lancet. 1998;352(9128):590–1.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Bellou V, Belbasis L, Tzoulaki I, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP. Environmental risk factors and Parkinson’s disease: an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2016;23:1–9.CrossRef Bellou V, Belbasis L, Tzoulaki I, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP. Environmental risk factors and Parkinson’s disease: an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2016;23:1–9.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Eichorn P, Yankauer A. Do authors check their references? A survey of accuracy of references in three public health journals. Am J Public Health. 1987;77:1011–2.CrossRef Eichorn P, Yankauer A. Do authors check their references? A survey of accuracy of references in three public health journals. Am J Public Health. 1987;77:1011–2.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Jergas H, Baethge C. Quotation accuracy in medical journal articles-a systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ. 2015;3:e1364.CrossRef Jergas H, Baethge C. Quotation accuracy in medical journal articles-a systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ. 2015;3:e1364.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d4002.CrossRef Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d4002.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34.CrossRef Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34.CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Ioannidis JP, Trikalinos TA. The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey. CMAJ. 2007;176:1091–6.CrossRef Ioannidis JP, Trikalinos TA. The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey. CMAJ. 2007;176:1091–6.CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ. 2006;333:597–600.CrossRef Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ. 2006;333:597–600.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Greenberg SA. How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network. BMJ. 2009;339:b2680.CrossRef Greenberg SA. How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network. BMJ. 2009;339:b2680.CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Tatsioni A, Bonitsis NG, Ioannidis JP. Persistence of contradicted claims in the literature. JAMA. 2007;298:2517–26.CrossRef Tatsioni A, Bonitsis NG, Ioannidis JP. Persistence of contradicted claims in the literature. JAMA. 2007;298:2517–26.CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA. 1998;280(3):296–7.CrossRef Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA. 1998;280(3):296–7.CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Lewis S, Clarke M. Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ. 2001;322:1479–80.CrossRef Lewis S, Clarke M. Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ. 2001;322:1479–80.CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Ioannidis JP, Chang CQ, Lam TK, Schully SD, Khoury MJ. The geometric increase in meta-analyses from China in the genomic era. PLoS ONE. 2013;12(8):e65602.CrossRef Ioannidis JP, Chang CQ, Lam TK, Schully SD, Khoury MJ. The geometric increase in meta-analyses from China in the genomic era. PLoS ONE. 2013;12(8):e65602.CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94:485–514.CrossRef Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94:485–514.CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Quan W, Chen B, Shu F. Publish or impoverish: an investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999–2016). Aslib J Inf Manag. 2017;69:1–18. Quan W, Chen B, Shu F. Publish or impoverish: an investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999–2016). Aslib J Inf Manag. 2017;69:1–18.
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Hvistendahl M. China’s publication bazaar. Science. 2013;342:1035–9.CrossRef Hvistendahl M. China’s publication bazaar. Science. 2013;342:1035–9.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Massive citations to misleading methods and research tools: Matthew effect, quotation error and citation copying
verfasst von
John P. A. Ioannidis
Publikationsdatum
06.10.2018
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
European Journal of Epidemiology / Ausgabe 11/2018
Print ISSN: 0393-2990
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7284
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-018-0449-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2018

European Journal of Epidemiology 11/2018 Zur Ausgabe