• Ronan F J Browne, P Mark Logan, Michael J Lee, and William C Torreggiani.
• Department of Radiology, Adelaide and Meath Hospital, Tallaght, Dublin, Ireland.
• Can Assoc Radiol J. 2004 Jun 1; 55 (3): 170-3.

ObjectiveTo analyze the errors present in references cited in papers submitted for peer review for possible publication.MethodsNineteen consecutive manuscripts submitted for peer review were assessed. They contained a total of 261 references. Manuscripts were submitted to 1 of 5 major radiology journals. Journal references were compared with either the original articles or abstracts obtained through MEDLINE. Book references were checked against the original book. In total, 259 of 261 references were obtained. The remaining 2 references were both out-of-print books that were not available. Each reference was checked and errors were identified as either major or minor, depending on the gravity of the error. Errors were analyzed to see whether they could be attributed to not adhering to journal guidelines or to other reasons.ResultsOf a total of 259 references, 56% (n = 145) contained at least 1 error, 53% (n = 137) contained minor errors and 15% (n = 39) contained major errors. Five per cent (n = 13) of references had more than 3 errors, and 79% (n = 274) of all errors were the direct result of authors not following journal instructions.ConclusionOver half of all references included in manuscripts submitted to radiology journals contain at least 1 error. The majority are avoidable, resulting from failure to follow the journal's instructions to authors.

9 keywords...

hide…