references

Letter to The Scientist

Martin Fenner
September 20, 2010 1 min read

Dear Scientist,

last week you published an interesting article by Christian Specht about Mutations of citations (https://web.archive.org/web/20120525054056/http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57689/?). Dr. Specht found more than 600 wrong citations for the paper by Laemmli (Laemmli 1970), which has been cited at least 88633 times according to Scopus.

Laemmli UK. Cleavage of Structural Proteins during the Assembly of the Head of Bacteriophage T4. Nature. 1970;227:680-685. https://doi.org/10.1038/227680a0 (https://web.archive.org/web/20120525054056/http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/227680a0?)

I was intrigued by the “sequence alignment” in Fig. 1a which clearly demonstrated that point mutations at 227 and 680 are particularly common, and that some mutations are inherited between overlapping groups of scientists. Of particular interest is the “complete nonsense mutation” that attributes the citation to the journal Science.

However, the author failed to demonstrate that the citation mutations had a paper-not-found phenotype or whether they were simply silent mutations. Missing is also an analysis of whether the mutations

Of particular interest would be whether there is a decrease in mutation rate over time, as automated tools have increased the fidelity of the citation process, and whether any citation style was particularly prone to mutations (no citation style uses checksums). As a researcher I suggest that the burden of proofreading should rest not with paper authors, and that journal and database publishers invest in appropriate citation repair mechanisms. And please use the DOI, even the paper by Laemmli (Laemmli 1970) has one.

References

Laemmli UK. Cleavage of Structural Proteins during the Assembly of the Head of Bacteriophage T4. Nature. 1970;227:680-685. https://doi.org/10.1038/227680a0 (https://web.archive.org/web/20120525054056/http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/227680a0?)

(n.d.-a). In web.archive.org. Retrieved February 21, 2021, from https://web.archive.org/web/20150923191606/http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/stratpolprog/legaldep/
(n.d.-b). In web.archive.org. Retrieved February 21, 2021, from https://web.archive.org/web/20170831024033/https://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/an-arxiv-for-all-of-science-f1000-launches-new-immediate-publication-journal/
arXiv.org e-Print archive. (2016). In web.archive.org. https://web.archive.org/web/20161013002949/https://arxiv.org/
F1000 launches fast, open science publishing for biology and medicine : News blog. (2016). In web.archive.org. https://web.archive.org/web/20161004092538/http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/01/f1000-launches-fast-open-science-publishing-for-biology-and-medicine.html
Home : Nature Precedings. (2016). In web.archive.org. https://web.archive.org/web/20161012221933/http://precedings.nature.com/
In which I suggest a preprint archive for clinical trials Gobbledygook. (2016). In web.archive.org. https://web.archive.org/web/20161019024534/http://blogs.plos.org/mfenner/2010/10/16/in-which-i-suggest-a-preprint-archive-for-clinical-trials/
Twitter. It’s what’s happening. (2016). In web.archive.org. https://web.archive.org/web/20161010225105/https://twitter.com/

Other Formats

ePub PDF JATS