Evaluation of Content Quality of Online Health Information by Global Quality Score: A Case Study of Researchers Misnaming It and Citing Secondary Sources
The Global Quality Score (GQS) is one of the most frequently used tools to evaluate the content quality of online health information. To the author’s knowledge, it is frequently misnamed as the Global Quality Scale, and occasionally secondary sources are cited as the original source of the tool. Thi...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | Publications |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/13/2/23 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849425794841968640 |
|---|---|
| author | Andy Wai Kan Yeung |
| author_facet | Andy Wai Kan Yeung |
| author_sort | Andy Wai Kan Yeung |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The Global Quality Score (GQS) is one of the most frequently used tools to evaluate the content quality of online health information. To the author’s knowledge, it is frequently misnamed as the Global Quality Scale, and occasionally secondary sources are cited as the original source of the tool. This work aimed to reveal the current situation especially regarding the citations among published studies. Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed were queried to identify papers that mentioned the use of the GQS. Among a total of 411 analyzed papers, 45.0% misnamed it as Global Quality Scale, and 46.5% did not cite the primary source published in 2007 to credit it as the original source. Another 80 references were also cited from time to time as the source of the GQS, led by a secondary source published in 2012. There was a decreasing trend in citing the primary source when using the GQS. Among the 12 papers that claimed that the GQS was validated, half of them cited the primary source to justify the claim, but in fact the original publication did not mention anything about its validation. To conclude, future studies should name and cite the GQS properly to minimize confusion. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-fb403c8fbcdf44d18dfbf63aebdab572 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2304-6775 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-05-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Publications |
| spelling | doaj-art-fb403c8fbcdf44d18dfbf63aebdab5722025-08-20T03:29:39ZengMDPI AGPublications2304-67752025-05-011322310.3390/publications13020023Evaluation of Content Quality of Online Health Information by Global Quality Score: A Case Study of Researchers Misnaming It and Citing Secondary SourcesAndy Wai Kan Yeung0Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Applied Oral Sciences and Community Dental Care, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, ChinaThe Global Quality Score (GQS) is one of the most frequently used tools to evaluate the content quality of online health information. To the author’s knowledge, it is frequently misnamed as the Global Quality Scale, and occasionally secondary sources are cited as the original source of the tool. This work aimed to reveal the current situation especially regarding the citations among published studies. Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed were queried to identify papers that mentioned the use of the GQS. Among a total of 411 analyzed papers, 45.0% misnamed it as Global Quality Scale, and 46.5% did not cite the primary source published in 2007 to credit it as the original source. Another 80 references were also cited from time to time as the source of the GQS, led by a secondary source published in 2012. There was a decreasing trend in citing the primary source when using the GQS. Among the 12 papers that claimed that the GQS was validated, half of them cited the primary source to justify the claim, but in fact the original publication did not mention anything about its validation. To conclude, future studies should name and cite the GQS properly to minimize confusion.https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/13/2/23global quality scoreresponsible researchbibliometric analysiscitation analysiscitation error |
| spellingShingle | Andy Wai Kan Yeung Evaluation of Content Quality of Online Health Information by Global Quality Score: A Case Study of Researchers Misnaming It and Citing Secondary Sources Publications global quality score responsible research bibliometric analysis citation analysis citation error |
| title | Evaluation of Content Quality of Online Health Information by Global Quality Score: A Case Study of Researchers Misnaming It and Citing Secondary Sources |
| title_full | Evaluation of Content Quality of Online Health Information by Global Quality Score: A Case Study of Researchers Misnaming It and Citing Secondary Sources |
| title_fullStr | Evaluation of Content Quality of Online Health Information by Global Quality Score: A Case Study of Researchers Misnaming It and Citing Secondary Sources |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of Content Quality of Online Health Information by Global Quality Score: A Case Study of Researchers Misnaming It and Citing Secondary Sources |
| title_short | Evaluation of Content Quality of Online Health Information by Global Quality Score: A Case Study of Researchers Misnaming It and Citing Secondary Sources |
| title_sort | evaluation of content quality of online health information by global quality score a case study of researchers misnaming it and citing secondary sources |
| topic | global quality score responsible research bibliometric analysis citation analysis citation error |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/13/2/23 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT andywaikanyeung evaluationofcontentqualityofonlinehealthinformationbyglobalqualityscoreacasestudyofresearchersmisnamingitandcitingsecondarysources |