ArticleThe world journal of men's health2025
Reducing Quotation Errors in Scientific Manuscripts: A Novel Approach from the Global Andrology Forum.
Article in The world journal of men's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Authorship Accountability and Transparency: A Standardized Model from the Global Andrology Forum.The world journal of men's health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study investigated 1) the frequency of quotation errors in multi-authored medical manuscripts in andrology, 2) analyzed common types of quotation errors and the methods used to rectify them, and 3) evaluated their impact on manuscript accuracy, credibility, and research conclusions. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwelve manuscripts written by the Global Andrology Forum (GAF) members between 2023 and 2024 were randomly selected for this study. The manuscripts and "Quotation Verification Sheets" were analyzed by senior GAF researchers to detect the number and types of quotation errors. The error rate was calculated by the total number of quotation errors and total number of all cited references in each manuscript. The impact on manuscript sections was assessed using a 0-4 grading scale. The Spearman correlation test was used to assess the correlation between scalar variables, and the Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to compare scalar variables between two groups.
resultsThe median value of quotation errors was 10.3%. Factual inaccuracy was the most common type of error, and was observed in all twelve manuscripts at various rates. The number of errors was significantly associated with the number of references (ρ=0.706; p=0.010) and in-text citations (ρ=0.636; p=0.026). Factual inaccuracy (ρ=0.588; p=0.044) and factual interpretation (ρ=0.861; p=0.013) were also correlated with the total number of quotation errors. However, no significant associations were found between quotation errors and author numbers or their qualifications. The quotation errors adversely impacted the manuscript discussion, followed by the overall message.
conclusionsQuotation errors are common in multi-authored medical manuscripts in andrology-related scientific articles. Journal editorial offices should incorporate quotation verification into the review process. Limiting references and in-text citations to only strictly necessary ones may help improve quotation accuracy. The quotation verification model proposed by GAF offers a practical and structured approach for detecting and correcting quotation errors.
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.