MEDLINE citation tool accuracy: an analysis in two platforms.
Auto-citation generator
Ovid MEDLINE
PubMed
biomedical databases
citation on demand
information literacy
librarians
Journal
Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA
ISSN: 1558-9439
Titre abrégé: J Med Libr Assoc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101132728
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Apr 2024
01 Apr 2024
Historique:
medline:
9
8
2024
pubmed:
9
8
2024
entrez:
9
8
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Libraries provide access to databases with auto-cite features embedded into the services; however, the accuracy of these auto-cite buttons is not very high in humanities and social sciences databases. This case compares two biomedical databases, Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed, to see if either is reliable enough to confidently recommend to students for use when writing papers. A total of 60 citations were assessed, 30 citations from each citation generator, based on the top 30 articles in PubMed from 2010 to 2020. Error rates were higher in Ovid MEDLINE than PubMed but neither database platform provided error-free references. The auto-cite tools were not reliable. Zero of the 60 citations examined were 100% correct. Librarians should continue to advise students not to rely solely upon citation generators in these biomedical databases.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Libraries provide access to databases with auto-cite features embedded into the services; however, the accuracy of these auto-cite buttons is not very high in humanities and social sciences databases.
Case Presentation
UNASSIGNED
This case compares two biomedical databases, Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed, to see if either is reliable enough to confidently recommend to students for use when writing papers. A total of 60 citations were assessed, 30 citations from each citation generator, based on the top 30 articles in PubMed from 2010 to 2020.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Error rates were higher in Ovid MEDLINE than PubMed but neither database platform provided error-free references. The auto-cite tools were not reliable. Zero of the 60 citations examined were 100% correct. Librarians should continue to advise students not to rely solely upon citation generators in these biomedical databases.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39119157
doi: 10.5195/jmla.2024.1718
pii: jmla.2024.1718
pmc: PMC11305470
doi:
Types de publication
Case Reports
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
133-139Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Laurel Scheinfeld, Sunny Chung.