The collection of recommendations and guidelines for conducting and reporting neuroimaging meta-analyses, called \"Ten simple rules for neuroimaging meta-analysis\" by Müller et al., has been published for a few years. Here, the papers citing this reference were examined to evaluate the rationale of the quotations and what quotation errors existed. In May 2023, an online query via Scopus identified 386 papers citing this reference, 2 of which were inaccessible. The resultant 384 papers were checked to identify the total number of quotations to the reference, the exact quotations, which of the ten recommendations/rules was concerned by each quotation, and if any quotation error existed. Results found that the reference by Müller et al. were quoted 804 times by the 384 papers, meaning an average of 2.1 quotations per paper. Out of the 804 quotations, the three rules that the researchers most frequently referred were the power of the meta-analysis (Rule #2, 14.1%), the consistency of the search coverage and reference space (Rule #4, 13.8%), and the statistical threshold (Rule #8, 10.2%). Overall, 63 quotations from 51 papers contained some errors. In other words, 7.8% (63/804) of the quotations contained errors and they involved 13.3% (51/384) of the papers. The commonest quotation errors were dealing with a failure to substantiate the assertion, unrelated to the assertion, and oversimplification of the original notion. Some notable quotation error examples were to quote Müller et al. to substantiate the assertion of having at least 10 datasets to be considered to have adequate power for ES-SDM meta-analysis (no such recommendation), and having a misquoted primary cluster-forming threshold of p < 0.05 or p < 0.005 (should be p < 0.001). The neuroscience community should be cautious and double-check the accuracy of assertions, even with a quotation.

Background. Quotations and references are an indispensable element of scientific communication. They should support what authors claim or provide important background information for readers. Studies indicate, however, that quotations not serving their purpose-quotation errors-may be prevalent. Methods. We carried out a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of quotation errors, taking account of differences between studies in error ascertainment. Results. Out of 559 studies screened we included 28 in the main analysis, and estimated major, minor and total quotation error rates of 11,9%, 95% CI [8.4, 16.6] 11.5% [8.3, 15.7], and 25.4% [19.5, 32.4]. While heterogeneity was substantial, even the lowest estimate of total quotation errors was considerable (6.7%). Indirect references accounted for less than one sixth of all quotation problems. The findings remained robust in a number of sensitivity and subgroup analyses (including risk of bias analysis) and in meta-regression. There was no indication of publication bias. Conclusions. Readers of medical journal articles should be aware of the fact that quotation errors are common. Measures against quotation errors include spot checks by editors and reviewers, correct placement of citations in the text, and declarations by authors that they have checked cited material. Future research should elucidate if and to what degree quotation errors are detrimental to scientific progress.