76

I’ve just read a paper in which a previous paper of mine has been cited. The line in which the citation happens is something like:

It has been shown that technique X is successful in this problem [citation for my paper].

However, in my paper, I never mention technique X.

Should I do anything? The paper that cites mine is otherwise fine and really doesn’t need a reference for their use of technique X, since they spend a lot of time developing it anyway.

einpoklum
  • 39,047
  • 6
  • 75
  • 192
Michael Stachowsky
  • 9,768
  • 5
  • 36
  • 45
  • 5
    Why do I feel like the quote "any press is good press" applies here? Why not adopt a "mistake it till they make me" kind of position? –  Nov 23 '17 at 04:07
  • 17
    @uwnojpjm: mainly because I want to be recognized for work I've actually done, rather than just get recognized for existing – Michael Stachowsky Nov 24 '17 at 03:31
  • Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/49633/how-to-react-to-your-work-being-cited-incorrectly-or-in-a-misleading-way – Miguel Nov 24 '17 at 06:31
  • 2
    @MichaelStachowsky Sometimes you just gotta play the hand you have. – corsiKa Nov 24 '17 at 15:42
  • 3
    Get used to it: It happens all. the. time. – Konrad Rudolph Nov 24 '17 at 15:49
  • 3
    I don't necessarily agree with the "any press is good press" stance here --- if technique X actually isn't successful for this problem, then this might spread either a) the belief that OP published an incorrect result or b) that X is applicable and thus waste research time. – apnorton Nov 24 '17 at 18:32
  • 1
    I had a much more annoying instance where someone said something like "Such and such happens, even though X claims it does not", and cited my paper as X -- even though I had done the exact opposite, and made no such claim. Exasperating, but I decided it wasn't worth picking a fight about. – iayork Nov 24 '17 at 22:18
  • 2
    I will make @apnorton point less abstract with "It has been shown that smoking cigarettes is successful in curing AIDS (citation for your paper)." but that does not sound like the case here. – emory Nov 25 '17 at 10:59
  • Are you absolutely sure that your paper is not an example of some more general technique, even if you didn't think of it that way? – John_Krampf Aug 02 '21 at 23:18
  • @John_Krampf yeah, I'm super sure that the citation was not actually about my specific paper but seemed to be a typo. Like the accepted answer suggested though, I did end up ignoring it since it was likely just a minor typo. – Michael Stachowsky Aug 03 '21 at 17:31

4 Answers4

128

Since you never mention their technique, it is quite likely it's a "typo" (they accidentally cited a different paper than they meant, which, at least, in my field happens more than 0% of the time), or they just misunderstood your paper (or you misunderstood your paper). I agree with @aeismail that there's nothing you need to do, but if you want to get to the bottom of this, you could contact the authors, saying something like:

I noticed you cited my paper in ... about X. However, that paper didn't consider X. Did you mean to refer to another paper? If so, I'd be interested in knowing which paper.

Secespitus
  • 107
  • 1
  • 5
Kimball
  • 32,248
  • 7
  • 64
  • 169
  • 79
    Contacting the authors, rather than the editor, has two advantages. It is a less drastic, friendlier action, and it gives them an opportunity to fix the mistake in future papers in the same research area. – Patricia Shanahan Nov 23 '17 at 00:46
  • 6
    The stated situation doesn't appear to present enough evidence to go beyond where we should be assuming good faith. If the OP has a way to contact the authors, this appears to be a good way to handle this. The issue is much more likely to be a case where the author just made an unintentional error, as opposed to being intentional misrepresentation. I would expect that most authors who made such a mistake would want to know about it, so it could be corrected in any future publication. – Makyen Nov 23 '17 at 01:12
  • 3
    Good points there. I think I'll send a quick email, just to see what the idea was – Michael Stachowsky Nov 24 '17 at 03:30
  • 14
    How is this not the accepted answer! – WetlabStudent Nov 24 '17 at 07:25
  • ... "or you misunderstood your paper". Duh? – 299792458 Nov 25 '17 at 11:36
  • 5
    @MichaelStachowsky You might want to consider changing the accepted answer. – pipe Nov 25 '17 at 15:12
  • 2
    @299792458 Misunderstanding one's own papers is possible, in the sense that I might not be thinking about X when I write a paper and therefore wouldn't mention X in the paper, yet an alert reader familiar with X would immediately see that my paper is relevant to X and perhaps even provides important information about X. On more than one occasion, I've had to give a theorem an attribution of the form "This was proved but not stated by so-and-so in reference such-and-such." – Andreas Blass Apr 01 '19 at 18:42
30

There really isn't any action worth pursuing here. You could write the editors and ask them to issue a corrigendum stating that the reference was incorrect, but you'll probably waste a lot of time and effort for what is likely a very minor issue.

aeismail
  • 173,481
  • 34
  • 418
  • 736
  • 9
    Agreed. An exception would be a prominent reference in a paper that is potentially read by a very large group of readers - as an extreme example, a reference on page 1 in a Nature article. – lighthouse keeper Nov 22 '17 at 20:17
  • 33
    If I (as a reader) came across a reference I was interested in or was important to my research, I'd be pretty miffed to waste my time digging through a paper that contains nothing about it. – Bamboo Nov 23 '17 at 00:43
  • 33
    @Phill: That’s true, but are you going to dig up the corrigendum to see that “Ref. X on p. Y should be Ref. Z?” – aeismail Nov 23 '17 at 01:20
  • 16
    @aeismail, well yes I would, I'm not sure how corrigendums (corrigenda?) are handled, but if it came with the paper I just downloaded or was on the website - which I'd hope it would be - then I personally would feel compelled to quickly glance over it before reading (maybe I'm weird)... Then when I found a reference etc. if it triggered my memory then I'd double check the corrigendum before following it. – Bamboo Nov 23 '17 at 03:36
  • 49
    I completely disagree with this answer. Although it seems unlikely that a corrigendum is required, it makes very good sense to at least contact the authors. If nothing else, it should stop them making the same mistake in their next paper. If the incorrect citation is just a typo, the journal might be willing to correct the online edition; if the paper is on, e.g., ArXiv, the authors might correct it there. – David Richerby Nov 23 '17 at 10:37
  • @DavidRicherby: Most journals do not correct online editions after they have been published; they only do corrigenda. You may want to send an email; others may find it's not worth the effort. I certainly don't want to have to deal with the nonsense of publishers for something like this. (I've dealt with a publisher-made error, and it was bad enough then.) If it's a repeated pattern, then maybe. – aeismail Nov 23 '17 at 18:27
  • 4
    @aeismail OK, but mailing the authors isn't going to take any significant amount of time. – David Richerby Nov 24 '17 at 15:05
14

Yes, you should write the authors.

I disagree with both @aeismail and @Kimball, in that I believe it is important to address the incorrect reference, and you should go to at least some effort to do it. Since it's not a critical reference in the paper OP mentioned, I would not do much, but we should be striving for published research to be absolutely correct on the facts (as opposed to opinions/perspectives/etc) so as not to confuse future readers.

So, a minimum of something like this (the wording is just a suggestion of course):

I've recently read your paper Their paper. Some nice words about their paper so as not to appear too hostile. I've also noticed the paper quotes own my work in Your paper regarding technique X. However, that paper of mine does not actually discuss technique X nor use it. Did you intend to refer to another paper (e.g. Some other paper which might be more appropriate)? Regardless, I'd like to ask you to consider taking some action to address this issue (perhaps by contacting The Journal), to ensure readers are not confused by the reference.

would be in order. Be respectful in addressing them.

einpoklum
  • 39,047
  • 6
  • 75
  • 192
  • 12
    I agree with writing the authors, but disagree with telling them what you think they should do. So that email but without the last sentence, and maybe add a sentence at the beginning saying something nice about their paper. – Noah Snyder Nov 25 '17 at 19:01
  • @NoahSnyder: See edit. – einpoklum Apr 01 '19 at 12:01
-13

You have a number of options. Beginning with writing the editor, author, or publisher. If they refuse to redact or recall or issue or public correction, what you can do is come out publicly to scorn the misuse of your work. This is especially true for scientific works that are being deliberately misrepresented, or maliciously used to advance some agenda. You have a duty to call out false reasoning in all contexts, but even more so when your own work is being used to do it. At worst, your work will advance bad science or social ideologies, depending on the work. At best, if it goes unchecked and unnoticed, it could tarnish your own reputation because people may not verify what your work actually says.

CogitoErgoCogitoSum
  • 1
  • 2
  • 26
    This is gratuitously heavy-handed for the situation described in the question ("The paper [...] really doesn't need a reference for their use of technique X, since they spend a lot of time developing it anyway..."). Do you really think that "public scorn" is appropriate here? Come on. – David Richerby Nov 23 '17 at 10:40
  • 1
    What Im going for is public awareness of those deliberately trying to manipulate the masses with false research. Do you think that is inappropriate or ineffectual? Do you really think false research should be ignored by those who see it for what it is, whether because they had a direct or indirect hand in it? I question your ethics and your involvement in these tactics if you have a problem with truth being called out. However harshly the people react is on them, not on those doing the calling out. – CogitoErgoCogitoSum Nov 23 '17 at 20:43
  • Fundamentally this question is about ethics. Not just on the part of the BS research(er), but on the poor sap who was misquoted, and a duty we all have in science to the truth. Harsh social reaction is not inappropriate, no, and if that utterly destroys the reputation of a liar passing his garbage off as science then so be it. Its all for the greater good. I cannot imagine anyone in academia disagreeing with this. Its your reputations and your work and especially the reputation of your institutions as unbiased and quality campuses that are at stake. – CogitoErgoCogitoSum Nov 23 '17 at 20:48
  • This goes well beyond an accidental misquoting or misinterpretation of source material. It could very well have ideological undertones and be socially/culturally manipulative, at worst, and at best, the inability of the paper-writer to adequately interpret source material speaks to his competency in the field. But ultimately, the refusal of the author to retract his publication after realizing a falsity speaks to intent, or ego, neither of which belong in academia. – CogitoErgoCogitoSum Nov 23 '17 at 20:54
  • So no, I dont think that this guy writing a public notice pointing out to readers the misuse of his work - in particular after the abuser has been informed and chosen to do nothing about it - is at all inappropriate or excessive. How could it be? The abuser ought to be ashamed of himself and perhaps will be shamed, but that is not the intent of the notice. The intent is to preserve the sanctity of the original source work and the reputation of its author, respect for the sanctity of science, respect for all readers of both papers. – CogitoErgoCogitoSum Nov 23 '17 at 20:57
  • I have laid out one optional solution based on a detail that is not specified in the question. Given the outlined scenario, I cannot fathom a reason why anyone would take issue with this solution unless they were a part of the problem themselves. – CogitoErgoCogitoSum Nov 23 '17 at 21:02
  • 12
    Don't you think you slightly exaggerate things here? Did you consider that the wrong quotation may just be a typo and not the meanness of the author who is trying to end the the world? I find myself often copy+pasting references in LaTex from my bib, grabbing a wrong citation would stay unnoticed. – Mayou36 Nov 23 '17 at 21:06
  • I think youre the one blowing things out of proportion. I gave an OPTION based on details that were not explicit in the question. If it applies, use it. If it doesnt, dont. You clearly didnt read my content. If you accidentally grab a wrong quote and the author of your source - or anyone else - pointed it out to you, youd make a correction, would you not? My post is premised on the idea that you refuse to correct yourself when pointed out - then youd be in the wrong for malicious and deliberate intent. If you cannot wrap your mind around this then that is your problem. – CogitoErgoCogitoSum Nov 23 '17 at 21:21
  • 13
    Whooooa there. For all you know, the error is a simple typo and the paper says "Widget theory, as developed in [14]" when it should really be "Widget theory, as developed in [41]" or something similar. Please stop throwing around these wild accusations of gross misconduct that are based on nothing more than supposition. – David Richerby Nov 23 '17 at 23:00
  • 6
    Answerer, please be reminded of Hanlon's razor. – leewz Nov 24 '17 at 23:55
  • 2
    @CogitoErgoCogitoSum so you never made a mistake? I'm pretty sure you have so that shows your "inability" of writing a paper and "speaks to your competency in the field", right? It just happens that one selects the wrong publication in the library and soemtimes such mistakes slip through proofreading and peer-review. If it's nothing substantial (which from the description it isn't) it's not nearly as big as a deal as you want it to be. –  Nov 25 '17 at 10:31
  • "Mistakes" happen. But if the person responsible for a mistake refuses to correct himself, and abuses your work and your name, as is the premise of what Im saying, then such people dont deserve sympathy. If they are so "innocent" then they wont have a problem coming forward with a public admission and redacting their own work... and there is nothing for you to do. If youre FORCED to do something yourself THEN to hell with the person and their so-called "mistake". – CogitoErgoCogitoSum Mar 20 '18 at 23:02
  • @leewz Malice or not, even the genuine idiot writing works passed off as science also need to be called out for what they are. Thats how you preserve the sanctity of science. – CogitoErgoCogitoSum Mar 20 '18 at 23:03