IP: Demand Citation Vigilance

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Demand Citation Vigilance


By Eugene Garfield

Isaac Ginsburg's "Disregard Syndrome"1 produced a spate of letters. Such
anecdotal evidence for unwitting or intentional duplication of research is
common. But I am not aware of any systematic study of the extent of such
duplication. In 1992, I discussed "bibliographic negligence,"2 and a decade
earlier I discussed "citation amnesia."3 In the latter, I cited John
Martyn's now classic survey of more than 647 British scientists,4 which
indicated that 22% of researchers had missed relevant information that would
have saved time, money, or work. But his study did not measure the extent of
deliberate disregard of the literature. And there are other variants such as
unconscious plagiarism or cryptomnesia, a term invented by Sigmund Freud and
discussed by Robert K. Merton,5 and reviewed in the Current Contents essays
cited and in a follow-up published two years later.6

While the journal literature is often deficient in documentation, it is
small compared to the bibliographic neglect displayed by inventors and
patent examiners. To encourage honesty in these matters the US Patent office
expedites patent applications that are supported with prior art searches
conducted by professional patent searchers. But there is no strict legal
requirement for this. However, years of neglect have led to the issuance of
thousands of absurd patents, many of which have been challenged in the
courts.

There will never be a perfect solution to the problem of acknowledging
intellectual debts. But a beginning can be made if journal editors will
demand a signed pledge from authors that they have searched Medline, Science
Citation Index, or other appropriate print and electronic databases. Perhaps
researchers need to sign the equivalent of a Hippocratic Oath that includes
a profile of the terms used in searching. Editors and readers can and often
do chastise authors who violate that implicit understanding. Working out the
details awaits the establishment of an appropriate "science court"7,8 that
could deal with intellectual theft, intentional or otherwise. These matters
come under the general heading of literature forensics, admirably discussed
by Chris Daughton of the EPA Environmental Chemistry Branch.9 Faith McLellan
has provided an apt discussion of the idea of "Old Medline" and the older
literature in general.10

Eugene Garfield (egarfield () the-scientist com) is president and editor in
chief of The Scientist

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/