Cognitive biases and research miscitations
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6415369 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Marcia J Simmering (0000-0001-9726-1001, Department of Management Louisiana Tech University Ruston Louisiana USA, corresponding author), Christie M Fuller (0000-0001-6792-1101, Information Technology and Supply Chain Management Boise State University Boise Idaho USA), Stephanie R Leonard (Department of Management Howard University Washington D.C. USA), Vanessa R Simmering (0000-0002-7559-1736, Doctrina Consulting Madison Wisconsin USA) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 74 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Publication date | 2024-11-28 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Applied Psychology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0269-994X • E-ISSN: 1464-0597 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/apps.12589 |
| OpenAlex | W4404799147 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 62 |
Prior research on miscitations in academic literatures have painted a dismal picture of high rates of inaccuracy. While this issue and the problems that stem from inaccurate citations have been reviewed, the attention given to the causes of such inaccuracies has so far been narrow. The primary rationale given for citation errors is author lack of motivation. In the current manuscript, we suggest that examining the potential for cognitive biases to also contribute to miscitations can add conceptual nuance to this question as well as provide additional recommendations for practice. We argue that even when authors are motivated to cite research correctly, that the cognitive biases of source confusion, gist memory, and repetition effects may lead to miscitations. We explore these ideas with a systematic review of over 1400 papers in which we found that the rates of miscitation are high (44.8%). Additionally, evidence from the review provides some support that cognitive biases may produce miscitations. Recommendations to authors, reviewers, and editors are provided
Citation · Cognition · Cognitive bias · Cognitive psychology · Confusion · Repetition (rhetorical device · Academic Writing and Publishing · Computer Science · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews · Psychology · scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Method Variance and Marker Variables
Psychology, Science, and Knowledge Construction
The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria
The Truth About the Truth
John Dean's memory
Assessing Common Method Bias
Four Research Designs and a Comprehensive Analysis Strategy for Investigating Common Method Variance with Self-Report Measures Using Latent Variables
Marker Variable Choice, Reporting, and Interpretation in the Detection of Common Method Variance
What You See Is What You Get? Enhancing Methodological Transparency in Management Research
Marketing survey research best practices
Common methods variance detection in business research
Common method biases in behavioral research
On the shoulders of fallen giants
Gist is the grist
Common Method Bias
Questionable research practices among researchers in the most research‐productive management programs
Are our referencing errors undermining our scholarship and credibility? The case of expatriate failure rates
Do authors check their references? A survey of accuracy of references in three public health journals
The problem of miscitation in psychological science
Heuristic Decision Making
Source monitoring
When 'Normal' Becomes Normative
| Highly cited | No |
|---|