Gallagher R. "Citation Violations" The Scientist 23(5):13, May 2009

[Eugene Garfield]

E-mail: rgallagher at the-scientist.com  

TITLE: Citation Violations (Editorial Material, English)

AUTHOR:Gallagher, R  

SOURCE:SCIENTIST 23 (5). MAY 2009. p.13 SCIENTIST INC, Philadelphia

AUTHOR ADDRESS: R Gallagher, The Scientist, 400 Market St,Suite 1250, 
                Philadelphia, PA 19106 USA 


FULL TEXT:
The Scientist   
Volume 23 | Issue 5 | Page 13  
 
Citation Violations 

Scientists are guilty of bibliographic negligence. Here's how to police the 
pages of journals. 
By Richard Gallagher 
_____________________________________________

The age-old problem of attribution in science—in other words, the practice 
of citation—has resurfaced with a vengeance in a couple of recent fracases. 

What's new about these cases is that they're being played out online in 
full gory detail and in real time. For the first time, large sections of 
the community can get involved in judging the evidence for themselves, and 
in having their say. It's very illuminating. 

At the theoretical level, the assignment of credit for previous research is 
straightforward: When writing a paper, authors should cite any highly 
relevant publications that have a bearing on the research being written up. 
But this comforting rule of thumb isn't necessarily followed. From 
disregarding the wealth of "old" scientific observations to omitting 
mention of competitors' latest results, citation practice has always been a 
source of tension in science, as it probably is in every other professional 
pursuit. Eugene Garfield, Editor Emeritus of The Scientist, has written 
extensively on the topic, coining the terms "bibliographic negligence" in 
2002, and "citation amnesia" a decade earlier. 

The first of the recent cases that I want to highlight surfaced late last 
year, when a collection of researchers accused the authors of a Cell paper 
of "improper citation, disregard for antecedent research, and shoddy 
experimentation." The work was on cell-cell communication in the 
organization of epithelia. Our story on the subject1 generated 37 comments 
from concerned readers. 

When the controversy emerged, Cell flatly refused to fully engage with the 
complainants, inviting them instead to post a comment on the journal's Web 
site. For the record, I've been an editor at Science and Nature, and have 
the highest respect for the skills and dedication of that cadre. But it's 
high time that journal editors joined the rest of us in openly discussing 
and learning from serious disputes. Their ongoing censorship2 is helping no 
one, and they are running the risk of making themselves irrelevant through 
nonparticipation. 

In the second case, researcher Neil Greenspan, writing on our Web site,3 
describes how the perceived novelty and importance of a specific study were 
significantly enhanced by omission of prior work. The subject matter of the 
paper, published in Science, is the development of an antibody with two 
specificities. While not disputing the validity or interest of the study, 
Greenspan takes issue with a portrayal of the work that "unfairly damage(s) 
investigators whose work and ideas are not cited or taken into account." At 
the time of writing, Science had not responded to his criticism. 

These recent examples raised a number of old questions: How widespread is 
foul play in citation practice? Is there a "best practice" and, if so, how 
should it be implemented? To help answer these questions, we've posted an 
online survey here. It's anonymous and the accumulated results are 
immediately available to participants, so if you want a snapshot of where 
we stand in relation to citation practice, check it out. 

We need a code of practice for citation, which journals should adopt 
explicitly. Gene Garfield called for this many years ago, suggesting that 
authors sign a pledge or oath that they have done a minimal search of the 
literature and that to the best of their knowledge there is no other 
relevant work. This is, in fact, the oath one signs when filing for a US 
patent. 

Judging by the amount of publicity for fraud and greed in science, 
standards appear to be in freefall. I am not sure that I buy it. I think 
that the openness gifted us by the Internet is revealing the lax standards 
that have been in place all the time. The purifying glare of publicity may 
actually help us get our house in order—I wish that the editors of research 
journals would get this. 

rgallagher at the-scientist.com  
 

References 
1. B. Grant, "Critics rip Cell paper," The Scientist NewsBlog, November 25, 
2008. 
2. R. Gallagher, "End the Censorship of Science," The Scientist, 21(5):13, 
May 1, 2007. 
3. N. Greenspan, "The Hype of Science," The Scientist NewsBlog, April 15, 
2009. 
 
Related Articles
End the Censorship of Science

The hype of science

Critics rip Cell paper

Citation Amnesia Survey
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20090505/fd0bdf96/attachment.htm>