IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/4149.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Verification of Citations: Fawlty Towers of Knowledge?

Author

Listed:
  • Wright, Malcolm
  • Armstrong, J. Scott

Abstract

The prevalence of faulty citations impedes the growth of scientific knowledge. Faulty citations include omissions of relevant papers, incorrect references, and quotation errors that misreport findings. We discuss key studies in these areas. We then examine citations to Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys, one of the most frequently cited papers from the Journal of Marketing Research, as an exploratory study to illustrate these issues. This paper is especially useful in testing for quotation errors because it provides specific operational recommendations on adjusting for nonresponse bias; therefore, it allows us to determine whether the citing papers properly used the findings. By any number of measures, those doing survey research fail to cite this paper and, presumably, make inadequate adjustments for nonresponse bias. Furthermore, even when the paper was cited, 49 of the 50 studies that we examined reported its findings improperly. The inappropriate use of statistical-significance testing led researchers to conclude that nonresponse bias was not present in 76 percent of the studies in our sample. Only one of the studies in the sample made any adjustment for it. Judging from the original paper, we estimate that the study researchers should have predicted nonresponse bias and adjusted for 148 variables. In this case, the faulty citations seem to have arisen either because the authors did not read the original paper or because they did not fully understand its implications. To address the problem of omissions, we recommend that journals include a section on their websites to list all relevant papers that have been overlooked and show how the omitted paper relates to the published paper. In general, authors should routinely verify the accuracy of their sources by reading the cited papers. For substantive findings, they should attempt to contact the authors for confirmation or clarification of the results and methods. This would also provide them with the opportunity to enquire about other relevant references. Journal editors should require that authors sign statements that they have read the cited papers and, when appropriate, have attempted to verify the citations.

Suggested Citation

  • Wright, Malcolm & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2007. "Verification of Citations: Fawlty Towers of Knowledge?," MPRA Paper 4149, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:4149
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4149/1/MPRA_paper_4149.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Armstrong, J. Scott, 2007. "Significance Tests Harm Progress in Forecasting," MPRA Paper 81664, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. JS Armstrong & Terry Overton, 2005. "Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys," General Economics and Teaching 0502044, EconWPA.
    3. Armstrong, J. Scott, 2007. "Significance tests harm progress in forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 321-327.
    4. Armstrong, J. Scott & Overton, Terry S., 1977. "Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys," MPRA Paper 81694, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. repec:mes:challe:v:31:y:1988:i:4:p:56-58 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jeong-Yoo Kim & Insik Min & Christian Zimmermann, 2011. "The Economics of Citation," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 27, pages 93-114.
    2. Matthias Ehrgott & Felix Reimann & Lutz Kaufmann & Craig Carter, 2011. "Social Sustainability in Selecting Emerging Economy Suppliers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 98(1), pages 99-119, January.
    3. Armstrong, J. Scott, 2007. "Significance Tests Harm Progress in Forecasting," MPRA Paper 81664, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. repec:spr:scient:v:91:y:2012:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0630-z is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Armstrong, J. Scott, 2007. "Significance tests harm progress in forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 321-327.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    citation errors; evidence-based research; nonresponse bias; quotation errors; surveys;

    JEL classification:

    • Y8 - Miscellaneous Categories - - Related Disciplines
    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • B4 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:4149. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Joachim Winter). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.