The reference list of a journal submission can provide a fascinating insight into the work ethics, experience and personality of an author.
To affect clinical practice, research findings need to be translated and presented in a proper format. Biomedical journals play a critical role in promoting scientific advancements and are looked on to provide unbiased and balanced data to professionals, as well as the lay public.
Manuscripts published in journals such as The Journal of the American Dental Association represent the current state of the profession and provide important resources for future development in our field. The responsibility for maintaining and improving the content of The Journal lies with the editor, but also with reviewers and authors.
Many factors contribute to the acceptance of an article: presentation of a timely and relevant topic; the use of a well-designed and methodologically sound study; and a well-written and easily comprehended manuscript. A JADA submission may be rejected if it inadequately satisfies these criteria. An important and often less-attended-to aspect of a manuscript is the reference list. The lack of attention to this part of the process sometimes can be grounds either for rejection or for a request for major revisions.
There are several reasons for using citations. One of the most important uses of references is to show the pathway to a discovery that led to a specific research finding or opinion. References also should be used to validate and confirm hypotheses and statements in the narrative of the manuscript. The reference list should include works that enable a reader to find similar, as well as different, discoveries and opinions. On the whole, the number of citations and the criteria used to select citations are good reflections of scientific rigor, but they also may suggest an author’s personal agenda.
Having too many references or too few are equally problematic. The use of too many citations may result from flawed selection standards, or a desire to impress reviewers and readers with the author’s broad knowledge and thorough preparation.
A reference list that is incomplete or too brief may be the result of poor search criteria. It also may spring from ignorance or laziness. Moreover, an author purposely may avoid using particular references to create an impression of being the first to come up with a specific idea or scientific finding, or to exclude the mention and recognition of "competing" colleagues.
Another interesting practice is self-citation. There are several reasons why authors may choose to cite their own work. When the submission is a continuum of previous studies or when the author’s contribution to the field of study is unique, self-citation may be justified. However, there may be less altruistic reasons, such as inflating one’s own importance.
As quantification of references sometimes is used to determine the scientific impact a researcher has had on a specific discipline and academic performance, increasing the number of an author’s citations by self-citation can create a false sense of the author’s worth. Interestingly, citing one’s own work apparently is a common enough practice to warrant its own word in German: "Eigenlob," meaning "self-praise."1 The frequency of self-citation ranges from an average of about 7 percent to approximately 20 percent of all references used in an article, depending on the type of publication (reviews of the literature or original research).1,2
The availability of several excellent electronic search engines enables access to more journals than one ever could find in any academic library. The advantage of such a wide access to information is the potential to produce a more broad-ranging and more up-to-date manuscript. However, sometimes it is not possible to retrieve an entire manuscript online. In such instances, some authors unfortunately may rely only on the provided abstract to justify inclusion of an article in their list of citations. This is a precarious practice, as the abstract is the author’s own interpretation and conclusion and may not always accurately reflect the true or complete outcome of a study.
Not reading the original work, but instead relying on references used by other authors or abstracts from a database without confirming the source of the information, may perpetuate commonly held misconceptions and erroneous opinions, and may adversely affect future clinical guidelines and protocols.
The reference list should not be an afterthought or an appendage, but an integral part andcontinuum of the rest of the article.
What constitutes an appropriate reference list? The source of a statement or quote in a manuscript should be cited. Credit needs to be given to previous research and to researchers whose works were pertinent to the present study. Readers should be given an opportunity to find more information about a subject. Complex issues could be clarified with appropriate citations, and references should be used to provide context to ideas and opinions. In general, the reference list should not be an afterthought or an appendage, but an integral part and continuum of the rest of the article.
A well-thought-out, up-to-date, correctly spelled, complete and accurate list of references that conforms to the format set forth in the journal’s author guidelines often is a reflection of the author’s overall thoroughness and diligence. Conversely, an unsatisfactory reference list may suggest carelessness or even disdain for otherwise commonly accepted publication practices. This type of conduct is readily evident and often negatively affects the overall impression of a manuscript.
Furthermore, a poorly assembled list of citations sometimes may be the main reason for a reviewer’s lack of enthusiasm for a submission, or a reader’s unwillingness to accept the message of the article. The reference list of a journal submission can provide a fascinating insight into the work ethics, experience and personality of an author. It behooves authors to make sure the emperor has his new references, as they are there for all to see.
