In our new “how can we help you?” thread, a reader writes:
Whose job is it to verify all the citations in a journal article under review? As a referee, my approach to citations has been (1) Those citations I recognize from my experience reading in the subfield do not need further verification, (2) Spot check a handful of citations to make sure they are not fabricated and, with a couple accessible sources, track down the specific claim to verify it is in the source, (3) If there are red flags (such as a single fabricated source), I more or less fully audit the manuscript’s sources. Is this less work than I should be doing? More? To what extent are editors responsible for checking references rather than the referees?
The OP describes more or less what I try to do. But I too have wondered whether responsibility should fall on journals to check references before sending papers out for review given how serious of a problem this seems to be. Some online submission systems imply that some journals do this, though I don’t know what the process is like, how many journals do it, or how effectively they check things.
What do readers think? What do you do as a referee? And any insights from journal editors?
Leave a Reply