Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2025; 35(S 01): S95-S101
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1796641
Research and Publications: The Process
Review Article

Building Credibility with Comprehensive Citation Practices

Pavithra Subramanian  ‡   *
1   Department of Radiodiagnosis, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
,
Raghuraman Soundararajan  ‡   *
1   Department of Radiodiagnosis, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
,
Jyotsna Makol 
2   Tulsi Das Library (Postgraduate) Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Honoring those who paved the way and paving the way for others is an old saying and practice that emphasizes the importance of acknowledging the contributions of others while also guiding and mentoring those who follow in your footsteps. In academic and scientific writings, citations are very important for maintaining the integrity, credibility, and progression of scientific knowledge. This article examines the significance of citations, their various types and methods, and the different styles used. By focusing on best practices and common errors, this article aims to guide researchers in effectively incorporating citations to enhance their work's visibility and impact. It analyses the different types of citations, including direct quotes, paraphrases, and summaries, and discusses the major citation systems such as the Vancouver and Harvard styles. The article also examines the common errors in citation practices and offers guidelines for accurate referencing. It also reviews various reference management software that facilitate to organize and automate the citation process. The impact of citations on bibliometric measures such as impact factor, H index, CiteScore, etc., which assess the influence and productivity of research, is also discussed. Further, the article briefly delves into the utility of artificial intelligence in citation management and future directions in citation practices. The goal of this article is to elevate the quality and credibility of academic publications in the area of medicine by focusing on the principles and methods of effective citation.

Keywords

citations - quotations - reference management software - references

* These authors contributed equally and shared the first authorship.




Publication History

Article published online:
09 January 2025

© 2025. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Mack C. How to write a good scientific paper: citations. J Micro Nanolithography 2012; 11 (03) 0101
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Lingard L. Writing an effective literature review: part II: citation technique. Perspect Med Educ 2018; 7 (02) 133-135
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Masic I. Plagiarism in scientific research and publications and how to prevent it. Mater Sociomed 2014; 26 (02) 141-146
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 McD Taylor D. The appropriate use of references in a scientific research paper. Emerg Med (Fremantle) 2002; 14 (02) 166-170
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Tikhonova EV, Kirillova OV. Citation culture: citing authors behaviour vs trust in research results. Science Editor and Publisher 2023; 7 (02) 166-181
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Bailey S. Academic Writing: A Handbook for International Students. 3rd ed.. London; New York: Routledge; 2011: 293
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Rogers SM. Mastering Scientific and Medical Writing: A Self-help Guide. 2nd ed.. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014: 1
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Shi L. Rewriting and paraphrasing source texts in second language writing. J Second Lang Writ 2012; 21: 134-148
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Bahadoran Z, Mirmiran P, Kashfi K, Ghasemi A. The principles of biomedical scientific writing: citation. Int J Endocrinol Metab 2020; 18 (02) e102622
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Patrias K, Wendling D. Introduction. In: Citing Medicine: The NLM Style Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. 2nd ed. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US); 2007
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Cho HM. Scientific Style and Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers (8th edition). Sci Editing 2015; 2 (01) 44-45
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Annesley TM. Giving credit: citations and references. Clin Chem 2011; 57 (01) 14-17
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Foote M. Why references: giving credit and growing the field. Chest 2007; 132 (01) 344-346
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. JAMA 1997; 277 (11) 927-934
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. ICMJE Recommendations. 2013
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 Chernin E. The “Harvard system”: a mystery dispelled. BMJ 1988; 297 (6655) 1062-1063
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 bloomsbury.com. Bloomsbury. [cited July 28, 2024]. Cite Them Right. Accessed July 28, 2024 at: https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/cite-them-right-9781350933453/
  • 18 Adedayo AV. Evaluation of content pertinence through citation count. J Scientometric Res 2016; 5 (01) 98-99
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Gøtzsche PC. Citation bias: questionable research practice or scientific misconduct?. J R Soc Med 2022; 115 (01) 31-35
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Bouter LM, Tijdink J, Axelsen N, Martinson BC, Ter Riet G. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Res Integr Peer Rev 2016; 1 (01) 17
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Haven TL, Tijdink JK, Pasman HR, Widdershoven G, Ter Riet G, Bouter LM. Researchers' perceptions of research misbehaviours: a mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam. Res Integr Peer Rev 2019; 4 (01) 25
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Urlings MJE, Duyx B, Swaen GMH, Bouter LM, Zeegers MP. Citation bias and other determinants of citation in biomedical research: findings from six citation networks. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 132: 71-78
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Sheth U, Simunovic N, Tornetta III P, Einhorn TA, Bhandari M. Poor citation of prior evidence in hip fracture trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (22) 2079-2086
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Rivera H. Influence of citation practices on academic assessment. Cent Asian J Med Hypotheses Ethics 2022; 3 (02) 125-129
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Teixeira MC, Thomaz SM, Michelan TS. et al. Incorrect citations give unfair credit to review authors in ecology journals. PLoS One 2013; 8 (12) e81871
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Roig M. Avoiding Plagiarism, Self-Plagiarism, and Other Questionable Writing Practices: A Guide to Ethical Writing. US: Office of Research Integrity; 2015
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 27 Hyland K. Self-citation and self-reference: credibility and promotion in academic publication. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2003; 54 (03) 251-259
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Blackmore H, Kitas GD. Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Rheumatol Int 2011; 31 (11) 1409-1417
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Svantesson E, Senorski EH, Samuelsson K, Karlsson J. Common mistakes in manuscript writing and how to avoid them. In: Musahl V, Karlsson J, Hirschmann MT. et al, eds. Basic Methods Handbook for Clinical Orthopaedic Research: A Practical Guide and Case Based Research Approach. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2019: 579-584
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 30 Sharma M, Sarin A, Gupta P, Sachdeva S, Desai AV. Journal impact factor: its use, significance and limitations. World J Nucl Med 2014; 13 (02) 146
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Masic I. The importance of proper citation of references in biomedical articles. Acta Inform Med 2013; 21 (03) 148-155
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Bergstrom C. Eigenfactor: measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. Coll Res Libr News 2007; 68 (05) 314-316
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Fernandez-Llimos F. Differences and similarities between Journal Impact Factor and CiteScore. Pharm Pract (Granada) 2018; 16 (02) 1282
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Falagas ME, Kouranos VD, Arencibia-Jorge R, Karageorgopoulos DE. Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. FASEB J 2008; 22 (08) 2623-2628
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Villaseñor-Almaraz M, Islas-Serrano J, Murata C, Roldan-Valadez E. Impact factor correlations with Scimago Journal Rank, Source Normalized Impact per Paper, Eigenfactor Score, and the CiteScore in Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging journals. Radiol Med 2019; 124 (06) 495-504
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Burnhill P, Mewissen M, Wincewicz R. Reference rot in scholarly statement: threat and remedy. Insights: the UKSG J 2015; 28 (02) 55-61
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Davis RC. The future of web citation practices. Behav Soc Sci Librar 2016; 35 (03) 128-134
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar