ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesResearch IntegrityComment: citation shortcomings: peccadilloes or plagiarism? (Papers: Brian Martin 2008)

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Comment: citation shortcomings: peccadilloes or plagiarism? (Papers: Brian Martin 2008)

Published/Released on March 03, 2008 | Posted by Admin on January 14, 2016 / , ,
 


View full details | Go to resource


“Citation shortcomings seldom become a burning issue among scholars. One possible reason is the difficulty of studying the problem. While it is relatively straightforward to assess whether the words and letters in citations are correct, it is far more difficult to determine whether authors have correctly chosen and used sources.

Wright and Armstrong show one way to do this: examine the presence or absence of citations to a particular source known to be essential – in their case, Armstrong and Overton (1977) – and, when it is present, assess whether it has been correctly interpreted and implemented. This exemplary study reveals near-universal neglect or misuse of a relevant source.

Another approach is to know the sources in a field comprehensively and to assess all the citations of papers in the field to look for both omissions and inappropriate inclusions. MacRoberts and MacRoberts (1989) used this method and reported a substantial level of citation bias and inaccuracy. They concluded that citations capture only a small proportion of the influence on a scientific paper: many sources that influence a paper are not cited.”

Brian Martin. Comment: citation shortcomings: peccadilloes or plagiarism? Interfaces, Vol. 38, No. 2, March-April 2008, pp. 136-137.



Resources Menu

Research Integrity


Human Research Ethics

0