Reliability of references to scientific publications: Where myths and inaccuracies originate

Abstract

Dynamics of national and world publication activity demonstrate that the number of publications on reliability of scientific information in various fields of knowledge has increased in recent years. In the Scopus database, almost three quarters of publications related to the reliability of scientific information belong to the field of medicine, engineering and computer science; in the Web of Science the distribution across thematic areas proves to be relatively even, while in the RSCI the largest number of publications is concentrated in the area of economics.The author provides evidence that multiple references to a publication cannot guarantee its quality, moreover they even do not constitute a conclusive evidenceon the publication existence. The author refers to the situation around the monograph by Carl Martin Wiig that has been repeatedly cited in the RSCI. The monograph was allegedly translated into Russian and published in Russia in 1986. However, after searching for information in various e-catalogs, databases and clarification received from Professor K. Wiig, the existence of this monograph was rebutted. The information on the monograph was published by Russian Wikipedia in 2011, which gave the occasion for referring to the monograph in various articles, textbooks, etc. The author emphasizes that the overtrust in information loaded to Wikipedia gives rise to various myths and inaccuracies.