Skip to main content
Log in

Unverified history: an analysis of quotation accuracy in leading history journals

Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The accurate use of references is vital to the academic search for truth. Despite this, previous bibliometric studies of many academic journals suggest that approximately 25% of references do not substantiate the propositions for which they are cited. This lack of substantiation is termed a “quotation error.” This paper presents the first assessment of quotation errors in history journals. Researchers compared articles in five leading journals with the references they cited, finding an error rate of 24.27%. Due to research difficulties posed by some citation conventions in history journals, this number likely underestimates the actual prevalence of errors. Additionally, this paper provides several potential methods for decreasing errors and improving the feasibility of future quotation error reviews.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Excluding the meta-analysis (Jergas & Baethge, 2015, pp. 2–4) and one extreme outlier (Buijze et al., 2012, p. 278) the mean sample size for all studies previously cited in this paper was 200.

  2. This excluded some—but certainly not all—books from the sample set. As long as the citation referred to a page range of less than 100 pages within a given book, the book was eligible for review. In the end, a total of 146 book references (making up 39% of all reviewed references) were reviewed.

  3. This form of referencing is requested in the journal’s submission guidelines (The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, n.d.), but a small number of reviewed articles did not comply with the direction.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study design, material collection, and data collection. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AC. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aaron Cumberledge.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

The dataset used in this article is available in a repository at https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12521/308.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 31 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cumberledge, A., Smith, N. & Riley, B.W. Unverified history: an analysis of quotation accuracy in leading history journals. Scientometrics 128, 4677–4687 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04755-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04755-w

Keywords

Navigation