Who is minding the bibliography? Daisy chaining, dropped leads, and other bad behavior using examples from the dog bite literature
Peer reviewed publications in the scientific literature are trusted to represent a high standard of discourse on any topic, and other scientists as well as the media may draw on them, and indeed depend on them, for reliable and accurate information. The literature review and other material contained in an Introduction form the foundation that supports the entire structure of any scientific article. An Introduction summarizes prior attempts to address the question at hand or related ones; clarifies the underlying assumptions on the subject (including the social or humane benefit of doing the research in the first place) and establishes that the authors are sufficiently familiar with the strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the existing literature. Similarly, the citations in a Discussion help anchor a study's Results to a larger body of work, which allows the authors to highlight how their findings are consistent with, or deviate from, findings of others. A Discussion also lays out the premises from which the authors reason to their conclusions. However, if citations are used without due attention to the actual degree of evidence based support they contain, or if key points asserted as fact are not supported with credible citations at all, the resulting argument and conclusions may be akin to a thread hanging from a poorly woven garmentd1 small tug and the entire piece begins to unravel. Given that guidelines for reporting scientific information (e.g. the CONSORT guidelines for reporting a randomized clinical trial [CONSORT, 2016] and the STROBE guidelines for observational