Citation and Reference Accuracy

I am writing this to remind everyone that sprinkling 'bogus citations' into scientific work is one of the worst forms of error in scientific writing, and I want you to understand what it means, how it is seen, and why you should consider avoiding it. To understand what I'm talking about when I say 'bogus citations', consider the following scenario: you read a sentence/statement in a paper, you see a citation that supports it, then you take your time to read the paper cited, and only then you realize that the cited work is not one that supports the statement in the original paper. That right there is what I call a bogus citation .. a reference that appears to support a point when it does not. Perhaps not all bogus citations will be caught by everyone, but some bogus citations will certainly be caught by someone, and it will be devastating for their perception of your scientific rigour every time. I think the vast majority of bogus citations will be due to one of these actions in this list: (1) Authors cite things just because they think they are good citations based on how these work were cited in papers they read from others, and not based on their own reading. (2) Authors see a connection between their statement/point and the cited work, but it is a kind of connection that is not obvious to a naive reader who has not thought about either work as much as the authors did. (3) Authors know that the citation doesn't fit, but they also assume that people will not pay enough attention to figure that out and they will get to pass unsupported statements (whether they are questionable or not) as statements with support from independent work. These scenarios range from simple oversight or incompetence to outright malice. But the adverse outcomes they promote are all the same, and it doesn't matter whether it was due to incompetence or malice. The former case will come from authors who don't care about the quality or accuracy of every part of their work. The latter case will come from those who are greedy, arrogant, and have no problem with misrepresenting themselves and/or others. Both are terrible, and both are unacceptable. Respect for scientific integrity is rapidly deteriorating in the public eye due to unrelenting propaganda pushed by those who have no time to go from beliefs from gut feelings to insights supported by evidence. So I am asking myself and everyone reading this to understand what it really means to have bogus citations in scientific work, to think about its implications, and to remember to do the right thing: never cite something in your work that you have not read and understood, and if there is a link between a statement and the citation that is not immediately clear or straightforward, don't just put the citation in and expect others to figure it out. Be explicit, find an elegant way to connect things, and by doing so add value not only to your own work, but also the one you are citing.

A growing problem in academic publishing: AI-generated fake or irrelevant references. As both book editor and journal editor, I am seeing an alarming increase in submissions containing citations that either do not exist or are completely unrelated to the topic. In many cases, it’s clear that AI tools have been used to generate these references without proper verification. While AI can be a powerful assistant, it cannot replace the researcher’s responsibility to verify every source. Fake or irrelevant citations damage more than just a manuscript: They erode the credibility of the author. They waste reviewer and editorial time. They undermine trust in the academic process. My advice: Use AI cautiously and always cross-check every citation in Google Scholar, Scopus, or the publisher’s database. Only include references you have personally read and verified. Treat your reference list as part of your scholarly identity — because it is. Peer reviewers, editors, and readers will check your citations. Make sure what they find strengthens your work, not your rejection letter.

On taking time to do a good lit review & craft a strong paper (or you can't take shortcuts). As a senior editor, I read dozens of reviews a year. Often, a reviewer complains that the authors have failed to cite papers or miscited papers. Sometimes, they use that lack of due diligence to reject a paper. I wrote about the problem of rejection bc of missing papers here - * took a strong position against doing so: https://lnkd.in/eAHSZKW5 However, I want to offer a clarification for early career authors. Calling for reviewers to educate & help authors, does not mean that you should submit papers that are under-researched or quickly assembled. It means that errors of omission occur even in well-researched & thoughtfully assembled papers. It is up to you, the authors, to do your very best job to stay up to date on the literature, write reasonable arguments, & submit work using current methods. This is easy to write - but hard to do - so how to ensure you've done a good job? First, check for updated references before submission. Papers take months to write. It's natural a few relevant citations may pop up once you've completed the literature review. I like to check for new references to key citations in my paper. I do so on Googlescholar.com. If I find relevant references, I add them to the paper. Second, edit once, edit twice, edit thrice. Early career authors often submit papers with small grammatical errors. I've asked a few of them why? They say that grammar should not get in the way of seeing the ideas. Clearly, they have not met my OCD friend Reviewer Two. Grammar matters. Third, check author names. Grammar & spelling checkers won't catch author name errors. In fact, they often amend them to be incorrect. If your checker recommends an alternative spelling, check the reference. Nothing makes a reviewer crabbier than seeing their name misspelled - it's happened to me! Fourth, really take time to know your topic. In the high-volume, high-pressure world that we work in, many authors are submitting papers on diverse topics. That they have a superficial understanding of a topic shows up in the literature review. The early stages of your work on a new topic should involve a few weeks, if not months of reading. Note, bc of this high overhead, I suggest people write synergistic studies or sets of papers on related topics or questions. Finally, have a knowledgeable peer read the paper before submission. The issue isn't just having the right citations, as Bryan Gaensler points out, it takes time to understand the nuances of a literature. Have a second set of eyes read the paper to make sure that not only the right citations are there but that they are used in the right spirit. If you take time to update references, carefully edit the paper, & solicit a knowledgeable peer review, you will have much more luck in securing a revision at a good journal.

Stop treating citations like sprinkles on your research sundae. They're the foundation, not the finishing touch. I used to think citing references was just a final checkbox in a manuscript. List. Format. Move on. But over time, I’ve realized—how you cite reveals how deeply you think. Messy, irrelevant, or bloated references don’t just look bad. They undermine your argument and your credibility. Here’s how to do it right 👇 1️⃣ Use My 3x3 Rule For every key point in your paper: → Cite 3 studies that support it → 3 that offer contrasting or alternative views This shows you’re not cherry-picking. You’ve done your homework. 2️⃣ Prioritize quality over quantity Unless it’s a review, 30–40 carefully chosen references are usually enough. → Favor original studies over meta-analyses unless you’re discussing summaries. → Choose the more rigorous study when in doubt. 3️⃣ Don’t hide behind vague names If your field has 12 “Smith et al. 2001” papers… clarify. ↳ Add initials, titles, or context in-text (e.g., Smith A et al., “The T-cell study”). Accuracy matters. So does clarity. 4️⃣ Format smart Don’t waste hours formatting by hand. → Use Zotero, EndNote, or any decent reference manager. → Keep one clean, centralized library for all papers. Examples: - Superscript style: “...as previously shown.¹” - Author-date style: “Brown and Green (2002) found…” Know what your journal wants. Set the style early. 5️⃣ Cite the paper that scooped you Yes, even if it stings. Ignoring it doesn’t protect you. It weakens you. Acknowledge it. Position your work as a complement, extension, or deeper dive. Doing this builds trust. 6️⃣ Don’t over-cite yourself If it’s relevant, include it. If not, cut it. If nearly every third reference is your own — That’s a red flag. Reviewers notice self-citation padding. So do readers. Quick gut check before you hit submit: → “Does this reference help the reader better understand this point?” If no, delete it. Great referencing isn’t about quantity. It’s about clarity, credibility, and respect for the reader’s time. Your citations should elevate your argument, not distract from it. Because a well-cited paper doesn’t just pass peer review. It gets remembered. And it gets cited back. That’s how you build lasting academic impact—one thoughtful reference at a time. ---- P.S. Join my inner circle of 4000+ researchers for exclusive, actionable advice you won’t find anywhere else — link in the comments below. BONUS: When you subscribe, you instantly unlock my Research Idea GPT and Manuscript Outline Blueprint. Please reshare 🔄 if you got some value out of this...

You are smarter than your software! 😱Pet peeve: when my students assume that automatically generated references are always unimpeachably correct. ⛔️No! You need to understand when an automatically-generated reference contains errors and update your database accordingly. Whether you are using Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote, Refworks LLC, or one of the many other helpful tools out there to manage your references and generate your bibliography, ERRORS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. 🙅🏽♂️Don’t assume that the software knows better because it doesn’t.  It’s just the first step in getting organised. 📚Yes, the tools can make you look smart and well-read.  But using them without thinking can make you look superficial or lazy. At the very least, check 3 things: 🥇author, 🥈title, and  🥉date. There are often mistakes that can be spotted a mile off. For example: ➡️Do you know what “n.d.” stands for? NO DATE! So, when you do actually see a publication date, you remove “n.d.” and reformat the automatically generated reference.  ➡️Do you know how to distinguish between an individual author and an institution? If you are seeing something like “Organization, World Health” then that’s clearly not right and you need to sort it out. (Spoiler alert: it’s all in the comma placement!) ➡️Add your own tips below. 👇🏽 #research #publichealth #PhD #references #MPH #dissertation