A paper that does not exist has been cited 1,163 times.
Dan Quintana reports:
This 'paper' was used in a style guide as a citation example, was included in some papers by accident, and then propagated from there, illustrating how some authors don't read *titles* let alone abstracts or papers.
The citation:
Rhodri Ivor Leng reports:
For this claim-specific citation network, I retrieved all accessible papers (12 in total – one was behind a pay wall that required me to spend more than $100 dollars to access the paper, which seemed an excessive cost to check for an error). I read all the papers, and copied exactly how each had referenced this phantom. In nearly every paper, the claim that rutin has certain health benefits was being justified by reference to this phantom alone.
For example, in Sun et al. (2008), we find:
“Rutin is often used as a therapeutical medicine with the functions in a wide range of circulatory problems, which can dilute the blood, reduce capillary permeability and lower blood pressure [1]”Here, [1] points to the phantom reference. Two years later, in Yang et al. (2010), the phantom accompanied a very similar claim:
“For example, it [rutin] can be applied to the treatment of diseases, such as capillary bleeding by diluting the blood, reducing capillary permeability and lower blood pressure [6]”Yes, [6] points to the phantom. Similar passages are found in the other papers:
Qu et al. (2011) – ““It [Rutin] can be applied to the treatment of diseases, such as capillary bleeding by diluting the blood, reducing capillary permeability and lower blood pressure [38]”.*
Wang et al. (2012) – “Rutin is a kind of flavonoid glycoside, called as vitamin P, which can dilute the blood, reduce capillary permeability, and lower blood pressure [26]” [Phantom is reference 26]
Zhou et al. (2012) – “It has been reported that rutin has the pharmacological actions of reducing capillary permeability, lowering blood pressure [3]” [Phantom is reference 3]
Yang et al. (2014) – “…rutin has many physiological functions, such as diluting the blood, reducing capillary permeability, as well as lowering blood pressure [1]” [Phantom is reference 1]
Gao et al. (2016) – “Rutin has many physiological functions, such as diluting the blood, reducing capillary permeability and lowering blood pressure [5]” ([Phantom is reference 1]
Saritha et al. (2017) – “Rutin is used to lower the blood pressure and it can also reduce the capillary permeability of the blood vessel through which some small molecules will flow [7,8]” [Phantom is reference 7]
In 2013, the claim made a brief transition into something a little more extravagant in a paper by Pinar et al. (2013): “It [Rutin] has clinically relevant functions, such as antibacterial, antioxidant, antihypertensive, anti-inflammatory, antitumor and anti-ageing. Furthermore, it can be used in the treatment of diseases such as capillary bleeding by diluting the blood, reducing capillary permeability and lower blood pressure [7-12]” [Phantom is reference 10]
For Miao et al. (2014), “Rutin has been also isolated from plants and used clinically as therapeutic medicine to reduce capillary permeability, alleviate pain, and lower blood pressure [4,5]" [Phantom is reference 5]
According to Zhu et al. (2015), “Rutin…is a kind of bioactive flavonoid glycosides, which is often used as anti-tumor, anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidants, etc. It is also used as a therapeutical medicine with the functions in a wide range of circulatory problems, which can lower blood pressure, reduce capillary permeability and dilute the blood [1]” [Phantom is reference 1]
It seems that papers copied references and claims from previous papers without checking the referenced paper...
Before signing off, I’d like to emphasise that the phantom reference’s title was the “The art of writing a scientific article”…
Ah, but don't you know, it's "publish or perish"!
ReplyDeletescientific papers and peer review are absolutely horrid and flawed processes, especially for products.
ReplyDeleteIf cars, aircraft, power tools, medical devices or anything else that could pose a danger to the user were made with the processes of science they would end up horribly unsafe. Just imagine a car designed by peer review.
Gots to get me some of dat Rutin!
ReplyDeleteIn truth, I spent (too many) years in academia, and B.S. sincerely RULES there!
As a former staff person at a 'pubic' university, I can tell you that academia is a steaming shithole of mostly incompetent wannabes with research that makes about zero impact on human knowledge.
ReplyDeleteHa ha! Great comment!
Delete