ReviewJournal of Korean medical science2015
Preserving the Integrity of Citations and References by All Stakeholders of Science Communication.
Review in Journal of Korean medical science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- A scoping review of guides and advice for scholarly citing in health research.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Review
- Letter to the Editor: Citations of Retracted Publications Should Be Discounted From One's Bibliometric Indicator.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Fifty Years of Retracted Medical Publications From 1975 to 2024: A Comprehensive Analysis of Trends, Reasons, and Countries Using the Retraction Watch Database.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Analysis of Retracted Publications on Artificial Intelligence: Trends, Ethical Concerns, and Scientific Integrity.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Analyzing the citation impact of predatory journals in the health sciences.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2025Article
- Concise Recommendations for EDitorials: Enhancing Narratives and Composition Effectively (CREDENCE).Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Review
- LETter To the EditoR Standards (LETTERS): Considerations for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- YouTube as a Source of Information on Public Health Ethics.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- Learning to Fake It: Limited Responses and Fabricated References Provided by ChatGPT for Medical Questions.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2023Article
- Review
- The Role of Nutrition in Immune-Mediated, Inflammatory Skin Disease: A Narrative Review.Nutrients · 2022Review
- Highly cited papers in Takayasu arteritis on Web of Science and Scopus: cross-sectional analysis.Clinical rheumatology · 2022Article
- Writing for "internal orthopaedics": referencing quality citations.International orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Article-Level Metrics.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Review
- Reporting Survey Based Studies - a Primer for Authors.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Review
- Information and Misinformation on COVID-19: a Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- English Writing of Non-Anglophone Researchers.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Citation.International journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2020Review
- Citation Analysis of Turkish Otorhinolaryngology Publications and Comparison with Five Countries.Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2017Article
- The Journal Impact Factor Should Not Be Discarded.Journal of Korean medical science · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Citations to scholarly items are building bricks for multidisciplinary science communication. Citation analyses are currently influencing individual career advancement and ranking of academic and research institutions worldwide. This article overviews the involvement of scientific authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, indexers, and learned associations in the citing and referencing to preserve the integrity of science communication. Authors are responsible for thorough bibliographic searches to select relevant references for their articles, comprehend main points, and cite them in an ethical way. Reviewers and editors may perform additional searches and recommend missing essential references. Publishers, in turn, are in a position to instruct their authors over the citations and references, provide tools for validation of references, and open access to bibliographies. Publicly available reference lists bear important information about the novelty and relatedness of the scholarly items with the published literature. Few editorial associations have dealt with the issue of citations and properly managed references. As a prime example, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) issued in December 2014 an updated set of recommendations on the need for citing primary literature and avoiding unethical references, which are applicable to the global scientific community. With the exponential growth of literature and related references, it is critically important to define functions of all stakeholders of science communication in curbing the issue of irrational and unethical citations and thereby improve the quality and indexability of scholarly journals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.