scholarly journals Quotation errors in general science journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 476 (2242) ◽  
pp. 20200538 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal Smith ◽  
Aaron Cumberledge
Keyword(s):  
Error Rate ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Total Error ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Scientific Writing ◽  
General Science ◽  
Total Error Rate ◽  
Academic Fields ◽  
The Future

Due to the incremental nature of scientific discovery, scientific writing requires extensive referencing to the writings of others. The accuracy of this referencing is vital, yet errors do occur. These errors are called ‘quotation errors’. This paper presents the first assessment of quotation errors in high-impact general science journals. A total of 250 random citations were examined. The propositions being cited were compared with the referenced materials to verify whether the propositions could be substantiated by those materials. The study found a total error rate of 25%. This result tracks well with error rates found in similar studies in other academic fields. Additionally, several suggestions are offered that may help to decrease these errors and make similar studies more feasible in the future.

Discussion on Burden Calculation of Ferromanganese Alloy Production

2011 ◽  
Vol 194-196 ◽  
pp. 248-254
Author(s):  
Shao Jun Chu ◽  
Pei Xiao Liu ◽  
Pei Xian Chen
Keyword(s):  
Error Rate ◽  
Total Error ◽  
Reference Value ◽  
Mass Conservation ◽  
Recovery Method ◽  
Total Error Rate ◽  
Calculation Results ◽  
Improve Production Technology ◽  
Technology Product ◽  
Better Than

The burden calculation of ferromanganese alloy was calculated based on the slag composition and designed product. The calculation results showed the total error rate of this method was 1.53% and the error rate of ore, coke and silicon was 4.66%, 1.71%, and 5.66% respectively, which was much better than using the traditional elements recovery method with the total error rate was 8.00% and the silicon error rate reached to 18.55%. This new method is more accurate than the traditional method and much closer to the actual production data. And it can apply to different ferroalloy factories because it is based on phase diagram and the mass conservation law. At the same time, the calculation result can reflect the gap between enterprise production craft level and ideal production level. This method has certain reference value to improve production technology, product quality and economic profit of enterprise.

scholarly journals Establishing User Error on the Patient-Reported Component of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 232596712091009
Author(s):  
Jonathan Bourget-Murray ◽  
Ariana Frederick ◽  
Lisa Murphy ◽  
Jacqui French ◽  
Shane Barwood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Error ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Total Error Rate ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Mean

Background: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score is a patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire developed to facilitate communication among international investigators and to allow comparison of outcomes for patients with shoulder disabilities. Although this PRO measure has been deemed easy to read and understand, patients may make mistakes when completing the questionnaire. Purpose: To evaluate the frequency of potential mistakes made by patients completing the ASES score. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was performed for 600 ASES questionnaires completed by patients upon their first visit to 1 of 2 clinic locations (Australian vs Canadian site). Two categories of potential errors were predefined, and then differences in error rates were compared based on demographics (age, sex, and location). To determine whether these methods were reliable, an independent, third reviewer evaluated a subset of questionnaires separately. The interrater reliability was evaluated through use of the Cohen kappa. Results: The mean patient age was 49.9 years, and 63% of patients were male. The Cohen kappa was high for both evaluation methods used, at 0.831 and 0.918. On average, 17.9% of patients made at least 1 potential mistake, while an additional 10.4% of patients corrected their own mistakes. No differences in total error rate were found based on baseline demographics. Canadians and Australians had similar rates of error. Conclusion: To ensure the accuracy of the ASES score, this questionnaire should be double checked, as potential mistakes are too frequently made. This attentiveness will ensure that the ASES score remains a valid, reliable, and responsive tool to be used for further shoulder research.

Biometric scores fusion based on total error rate minimization

2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 1066-1082 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kar-Ann Toh ◽  
Jaihie Kim ◽  
Sangyoun Lee
Keyword(s):  
Error Rate ◽  
Total Error ◽  
Total Error Rate

Recursive total error rate minimization

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Se-In Jang ◽  
Geok-Choo Tan ◽  
Kar-Ann Toh
Keyword(s):  
Error Rate ◽  
Total Error ◽  
Total Error Rate

Characterization of published errors in high-impact oncology journals

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6627-6627
Author(s):  
A. Molckovsky ◽  
M. M. Vickers ◽  
P. A. Tang
Keyword(s):  
Error Rate ◽  
Error Propagation ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Typographical Error ◽  
Survey Results ◽  
Erroneous Data

6627 Background: Knowledge within oncology is disseminated primarily via peer-reviewed journals. The potential for dissemination of erroneous data exists, an issue that has not been explored in oncology. We evaluated errata from the Journal of Clinical Oncology and the Journal of the National Cancer Institute published between 2004–2007. Methods: Two authors independently abstracted data regarding errata and classified them as trivial (eg typographical error) or serious (eg change in outcome). For serious errors, the frequency of citation and error propagation was determined using the Science Citation Index in Web of Science. For publications cited > 150 times, a random sample of 10% were evaluated for error propagation. Canadian oncologists were surveyed regarding attitudes towards published errata. Results: There were 190 published errors, out of a total of 5118 papers, for an error rate of 4 ± 1% (SD) per year. 26/190 errors were identified as serious (14%). The median time from publication of the original article to publication of the erratum was 3.5 mo for trivial errors compared to 8.3 mo for serious errors (p = 0.03). A median of 1 error per article was reported for papers with trivial errors compared to a median of 2 errors per article with serious errors (p < 0.01). The 26 articles with serious errors were cited 256 times before publication of the error and 1056 times afterwards; of these, 96 and 527, respectively, were evaluated for propagation. Error propagation occurred in 14.6% of the citations published before error publication, and in 3.4% of citations published afterwards (p < 0.001). Survey results indicate that 30% of oncologists do not read the erratum section of journals, and that 45% of oncologists have only read the abstract of an article before citing it in a publication. Although 58% of oncologists have noticed errors in cancer publications, only 15% of these errors were reported. Conclusions: Error rates in high impact oncology journals average 4% per year, but this is likely an underestimate since errors noticed by readers are not consistently reported to the journal. The accuracy of articles submitted for publication is of utmost importance; while error propagation decreases after erratum publication, serious errors continue to be propagated in the literature. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Tourniquet use in the prehospital setting: Are they being used appropriately?

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin M. Duignan, MS, EMT-B ◽  
Laura C. Lamb, MD ◽  
Monica M. DiFiori, BS ◽  
John Quinlavin, BS ◽  
James M. Feeney, MD, FACS
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Medicine ◽  
Error Rate ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Total Error ◽  
First Responders ◽  
Prehospital Setting ◽  
Extremity Injury ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Total Error Rate ◽  
Level Ii

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate tourniquet use in the Hartford prehospital setting during a 34-month period after the Hartford Consensus was published, which encouraged increasing tourniquet use in light of military research.Design: This was a retrospective review of patients with bleeding from a serious extremity injury to determine appropriateness of tourniquet use or omission.Setting: Level II trauma center between April 2014 and January 2017.Participants: Eighty-four patients met inclusion criteria and were stratified based on tourniquet use during prehospital care.Main Outcome Measures: Five of the 84 patients received a tourniquet. All five of those tourniquets (100 percent of the group, 6.0 percent of the population) were not indicated and deemed inappropriate. Three of the 84 patients did not receive a tourniquet when one was indicated (3.8 percent of the group, 3.6 percent of the population) and these omissions were also deemed inappropriate. Total error rate was 9.5 percent (8/84).Results: There was a significant association between Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS) and likelihood of requiring a tourniquet (p = 0.0013) but not between MESS and likelihood of receiving a tourniquet (p = 0.1055). There was also a significant association between wrongly placed tourniquets and the type of providers who placed them [first responders, p = 0.0029; Emergency Medicine Technicians (EMTs), p = 0.0001].Conclusions: Tourniquets are being used inappropriately in the Hartford prehospital setting. Misuse is associated with both EMTs and first responders, highlighting the need for better training and more consistent protocols.

scholarly journals Comparison of Medication History Accuracy Between Nurses and Pharmacy Personnel

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Connor Bowman ◽  
Jennifer McKenna ◽  
Phil Schneider ◽  
Brian Barnes
Keyword(s):  
Error Rate ◽  
Community Hospital ◽  
Total Error ◽  
Medication History ◽  
Total Error Rate ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Pharmacy Technicians ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Clinically Significant

Purpose: To evaluate the differences in medication history errors made by pharmacy technicians, students, and pharmacists compared to nurses at a community hospital. Methods: One hundred medication histories completed by either pharmacy or nursing staff were repeated and evaluated for errors by a fourth-year pharmacy student. The histories were analyzed for differences in the rate of errors per medication. Errors were categorized by their clinical significance, which was determined by a panel of pharmacists, pharmacy students, and nurses. Errors were further categorized by their origin as either prescription (Rx) or over the counter (OTC). The primary outcome was the difference in the rate of clinically significant errors per medication. Secondary outcomes included the differences in the rate of clinically insignificant errors, Rx errors, and OTC errors. Differences in the types of errors for Rx and OTC medications were also analyzed. Additionally, the number of patients with no errors was compared between both groups. Results: The pharmacy group had a lower clinically significant error rate per medication (0.03 vs 0.09; relative risk [RR] = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.020-0.093; P = .003). For secondary outcomes, the pharmacy group had a lower total error rate (0.21 vs 0.36, RR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.041-0.255; P = .007), Rx error rate (0.09 vs 0.27, RR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.071-0.292; P = .002), and OTC error rate (0.24 vs 0.46; RR = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.057-0.382; P = .009) per medication. The pharmacy group completed 20% more medication histories without Rx errors ( P = .045) and 25% more histories without OTC errors ( P = .041). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that expanded use of pharmacy technicians and students improves the accuracy of medication histories in a community hospital.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document