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.

Two flaws in concepts were identified and discussed in the paper (\"Removal of Pb(II) from contaminated waters using cellulose sulfate/chitosan aerogel: Equilibrium, kinetics, and thermodynamic studies\". J. Environ. Manag. 286, 112167; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112167). In the literature, the Radke-Prausnitz model is expressed in different forms, but some of them are incorrect. The first flaw is related to the nonlinear form of the Radke-Prausnitz model. The nonlinear form of this three parameters model is expressed correctly as [Formula: see text] . The units of two parameters are ARP (L/kg) and BRP [(mol/kg)/(mol/L)β] by considering qe (mol/kg) and Ce (mol/L). The limitation for its exponent is 0≤ β ≤ 1. This model is developed by two authors (Radke and Prausnitz). The correct paper (DOI: 10.1021/i160044a003) cited as reference of this model is \"Radke, C.J., Prausnitz, J.M., 1972. Adsorption of organic solutes from dilute aqueous solution of activated carbon. Ind. Eng. Chem. 11, 445-451\". The second is the misconception about the unit of the Langmuir constant (KL; L/mg). The correct unit of KL is litre per milligram of adsorbate (i.e., Pb ions), not litre per milligram of adsorbent (the cellulose sulfate/chitosan aerogel material as reported by Najaflou and co-workers. They proposed a new equation [KL (L/mg) × m/V (mg/L)] to convert the Langmuir constant and then applied it to calculate the thermodynamic parameters of the adsorption process. The m/V is a solid/liquid ratio (g/L or kg/L). However, this conversion and application are mistakes that were thoroughly discussed in this paper. The correction is KEqo=1γAdsorbate×KLLmol×ComolL, with C° (1 mol/L by definition) being the standard state of solute and γAdsorbate (dimensionless) being the activity coefficient of adsorbate in solution. To avoid unexpected mistakes, the present authors suggest that researchers should have a correct citation (citing the original reference instead of using secondary references) and check the consistency of units (i.e., the constants of adsorption models) carefully.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the accuracy of quotations in the published literature of the Wound Management of Open Lower Limb Fractures (WOLLF) Randomized Clinical Trial.
METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify all citations of WOLLF from 2018 to 2021. Duplicate papers, non-English language papers, textbooks, technical tip videos, Ph.D. theses, and other grey literature were excluded from analysis. Eligible publications had their full text assessed by 2 independent reviewers who used a validated framework of error classification.
RESULTS: We identified 62 original papers that met our eligibility criteria and referenced WOLLF. Of the 62 papers, 12 contained a quotation error (12/62, 19%). Errors were classified into major and minor. There were 7 major errors and 5 minor errors. The majority of quotation errors (7/12, 58%) occurred due to multi-referencing, where groups of references were used to support single assertions. There was substantial agreement between the two independent reviewers as determined by a Kappa coefficient of 0.761.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated a 19% quotation error rate in the literature regarding WOLLF. The majority were due to multi-referencing. We suggest that both authors and reviewers carefully check the source literature of key references.

UNASSIGNED: The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of quotations of the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus Evaluation by Randomization (ProFHER) study in the published literature.
UNASSIGNED: A literature search was performed from March 2015 to November 2019 to identify all papers that reference ProFHER since its publication. Full text articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers using a validated framework of assessing quotation errors. A kappa co-efficient was calculated to assess interobserver reliability of the reviewers.
UNASSIGNED: There were 260 individual ProFHER quoted references within the 138 included articles. We identified 35/260 quotation errors (13%). Of these, 10/35 (29%) were major quotation errors and 25/35 (71%) minor quotation errors. There was substantial interobserver agreement when errors were classified. Of the 10 major errors, six quotations were not substantiated by the results of ProFHER and three were unrelated to ProFHER. One paper contained a quotation error that contradicted the results of ProFHER. Of the 25 minor errors, 19 oversimplified or generalised the conclusions of ProFHER and six contained numerical or grammatical errors.
UNASSIGNED: The current study demonstrated substantial inaccuracies in quotations of the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus Evaluation by Randomization study. Vigilance is recommended when quoting the literature and reviewing submitted papers in order to prevent the perpetuation of misquoted data.

Quotation error is an inaccuracy in the assertions made by authors when referencing another\'s work. This study aimed to assess the quotation errors in articles referencing the Distal Radius Acute Fracture Fixation Trial (DRAFFT). A literature search was performed to identify all citations of DRAFFT from 2014 to 2020. The relevant publications were assessed by two reviewers using a validated framework of error classification. There were 83 articles containing references to DRAFFT. There was substantial agreement between the two reviewers (Kappa coefficient 0.66). We found 22/83 (28%) of articles contained an error, with one article containing two errors. There were 12 major errors, which were not substantiated by, were unrelated to or contradicted the findings of DRAFFT, and 11 minor errors, including numerical inaccuracies, oversimplification or generalization. This study highlights that a significant number of articles inaccurately quote DRAFFT. Authors and journals should consider checking the accuracy of key referenced statements.

The references list is an important part of a scientific article that serves to confirm the accuracy of the authors\' statements. The goal of this study was to evaluate the reference accuracy in the field of spine surgery.
Four major peer-reviewed spine surgery journals were chosen for this study based on their subspecialty clinical impact factors. Sixty articles per journal were selected from 12 issues each of The Spine Journal, Spine, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, and 40 articles were selected from 8 issues of Global Spine Journal, for a total of 220 articles. All the articles were published in 2019 and were selected using computer-generated numbers. From the references list of each article, one reference was again selected by using a computer-generated number and then checked for citation or quotation errors.
The results indicate that 84.1% of articles have a minor citation error, 4.5% of articles have a major citation error, 9.5% of articles have a minor quotation error, and 9.1% of articles have a major quotation error. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine had the fewest citation errors compared with the other journals evaluated in this study. Using chi-square analysis, no association was determined between the occurrence of errors and potential markers of reference mistakes. Still, statistical significance was found between the occurrence of citation errors and the spine journals tested.
In order to advance medical treatment and patient care in spine surgery, detailed documentation and attention to detail are necessary. The results from this study illustrate that improved reference accuracy is required.

The reference list is an important part of academic manuscripts. The goal of this study is to evaluate the reference accuracy in the field of neurosurgery.
This study examines four major peer-reviewed neurosurgery journals, chosen based on their clinical impact factor: Neurosurgery, J Neurosurg, World Neurosurg, and Acta Neurochir. For each of the four journals, five articles from each of the journal\'s 12 issues published in 2019 were randomly selected using an online generator. This resulted in a total of 240 articles, 60 from each journal. Additionally, from each article\'s list of references, one reference was again randomly selected and checked for a citation or quotation error. The chi-square test was used to analyze the association between the occurrence of citation and quotation errors and the presence of hypothesized risk factors that could impact reference accuracy.
62.1% of articles had a minor citation error, 8.33% had a major citation error, 12.1% had a minor quotation error, and 5.8% of articles had a major quotation error. Overall, Acta Neurochir presented with the fewest quotation errors compared with the other journals evaluated. The only association between the frequency of errors and potential markers of reference mistakes was with the length of the bibliography. Surprisingly, this correlation indicated that the articles with longer reference lists had fewer citation errors (p < 0.01). Statistical significance was found between the occurrence of citation errors and the journals of publication (p < 0.01).
In order to advance medical treatment and patient care in neurosurgery, detailed documentation and attention to detail are necessary. The results from this analysis illustrate that improved reference accuracy is required.

Objective The objective of this paper is to examine quotation error in human factors. Background Science progresses through building on the work of previous research. This requires accurate quotation. Quotation error has a number of adverse consequences: loss of credibility, loss of confidence in the journal, and a flawed basis for academic debate and scientific progress. Quotation error has been observed in a number of domains, including marine biology and medicine, but there has been little or no previous study of this form of error in human factors, a domain that specializes in the causes and management of error. Methods A study was conducted examining quotation accuracy of 187 extracts from 118 published articles that cited a control article (Vaughan\'s 1996 book: The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA). Results Of extracts studied, 12.8% ( n = 24) were classed as inaccurate, with 87.2% ( n = 163) being classed as accurate. A second dimension of agreement was examined with 96.3% ( n = 180) agreeing with the control article and only 3.7% ( n = 7) disagreeing. The categories of accuracy and agreement form a two by two matrix. Conclusion Rather than simply blaming individuals for quotation error, systemic factors should also be considered. Vaughan\'s theory, normalization of deviance, is one systemic theory that can account for quotation error. Application Quotation error is occurring in human factors and should receive more attention. According to Vaughan\'s theory, the normal everyday systems that promote scholarship may also allow mistakes, mishaps, and quotation error to occur.

There are two types of errors when references are used in the scientific literature: citation errors and quotation errors, and these errors have in reviews mainly been evaluated quantitatively. Quotation errors are the major problem, and 1 review reported 6% major quotation errors. The objective of this listing of quotation errors is to illustrate by qualitative analysis of different types of 10 major quotation errors how and possibly why authors misquote references. The author selected for review the first 10 different consecutive major quotation errors encountered from his reading of the headache literature. The characteristics of the 10 quotation errors ranged considerably. Thus, in a review of migraine therapy in a very prestigious medical journal, the superiority of a new treatment (sumatriptan) vs an old treatment (aspirin plus metoclopramide) was claimed despite no significant difference for the primary efficacy measure in the trial. One author, in a scientific debate, referred to the lack of dilation of the middle meningeal artery in spontaneous migraine despite the fact that only 1 migraine attack was studied. The possibility for creative major quotation errors in the medical literature is most likely infinite. Qualitative evaluations, as the present, of major quotation errors will hopefully result in more general awareness of quotation problems in the medical literature. Even if the final responsibility for correct use of quotations is with the authors, the referees, the experts with the knowledge needed to spot quotation errors, should be more involved in ensuring correct and fair use of references. Finally, this paper suggests that major misleading quotations, if pointed out by readers of the journal, should, as a rule, be corrected by way of an erratum statement.

BACKGROUND: A recent review of technical editing of research suggests that over one third of references cited in articles in medical journals have some inaccuracies and one fifth of quotations to references in these articles are not accurate.
METHODS: Two hundred and forty-nine citation references and 408 quotes from 25 articles published in 5 orthopaedic journals were randomly selected to determine referencing accuracy. The presence of citation errors was examined by 1 of the authors while the presence of quotation errors was determined by 2 of the authors. Full copies of articles as well as the references were obtained to compare the accuracies.
RESULTS: The total citation error rate was 41% (103 out of 249 references), and the total quotation error rate was 20% (80 out of 408 quotes) for the 5 orthopaedic journals.
CONCLUSIONS: Citation and quotation errors were still relatively common in orthopaedic journals. While we did not identify any factors associated with citation and quotation errors, the use of technical editing may reduce the amount of citation errors.
CONCLUSIONS: Readers and authors should be aware that many citations of studies are inaccurate and one should review the original source if it is to be used in another publication or to guide clinical treatment.