Dear Claus-Christian: "many researchers read titles and abstracts but not the full paper' . 

It was said:"let him who is without sin, cast the first stone". Honestly, I would be neither first nor (n+1)st to throw it. However I have never seen an abstract giving a false presentation of the full paper. Incomplete - yes, presenting black as white - no. Meantime, it is just such mispresentation my original question was about.

In some journals, it is possible to publish responses to articles: you can comment the published article and point to the mistakes the authors made. Still, usually such response articles are published only if the authors have made major mistakes, not in cases if the mistakes were minor. If papers with major mistakes get published, this also reflects the low quality of the journal's review process and also, it may show that the editor has been too busy (or, in some cases, not competent enough) to notice these. Nowadays, several low-quality "pay and we'll publish whatever trash we receive" journals have been created and their owners do not care of the quality of the papers they publish. Also, unfortunately, some authors from poor universities do not have access to full-text articles in major databases, so they can cite only what they can read from the abstracts and also, some authors' English is not good enough: thus, maybe some do not fully understand what they cite.

Boris and Tiia,

Yes - it happens. For me, the analogy 'any publicity is good publicity' holds. I would hazard a guess that at least a third of those who have cited my work, and had their work published, have either mis-interpreted my work or not really read it much beyond the title or abstract - or both. I personally don't mind - as long as they are not mis-interpreting my work in being critical of it; but that doesn't really happen. 

Dear Tila, I think it is not possible for even a very conscientious and competent reviewer  or editor to  check every reference in every submitted paper. I believe  only authors are to blame.

Dear Dean, I do not claim to being  "holier than thou" but still cannot help saying that if a scientist is interested not so  in his/her personal publicity  as in some impact made by his/her study on the development of the science the principle "any publicity is good publicity" does not hold.

@Boris, Dean, Tiia; I think that mis-citation is a problem.  But it may be due to carelessness rather than dishonesty, although it may be due to both.  In these cases, perhaps the person who was wrongly cited could get in touch with the other party?  Do you think it's a good idea at all, just so that errors in science are minimized rather than continually propagated?  I am assuming that the one who erred did so unintentionally and desires to be corrected.

Dear Miranda, I do not think about the intentional falsification but  I believe that refering to a publication without trying to see what it was about, only to make one's list of references longer is dishonesty.. And yes, sometimes I try to get in touch with the "wrong'uns" but have never got any answer.

Dear Boris, like you I had no response from some people.  So we have done what is good and right; peace be on us all!  There are people who do not take correction with an open mind, don't let them cause you any uneasiness.  Have a good day, all dear friends.  Our research seems never ending, exhausting but brings a certain joy.

It does!

As already mentioned by Miranda, inadvertent errors/misunderstandings in quoting literature are common. Purposeful misunderstandings, on the other hand, are quite rare in my experience. The two things are quite different. While purposeful misunderstanding and misquoting is indeed dishonest, we all make errors even when acting in good faith.

It is difficult to be sure that a misquote is intentional. It would take a careful examination of the papers published by a specific individual to detect a pattern of intentional misquotes meant to support the author's viewpoint/conclusions, and except for very evident cases of "truth manipulation", the author most often still deserves the benefit of doubt.

If you point out the mistakes to these authors and they are not smart enough to learn from their mistakes, that's their problem, not yours. If they are trying to build a career on professional lies, reality is going to catch up with them pretty soon.

just a short and straightforward answer: many researchers read titles and abstracts but not the full paper. This is definitely not a good attitude. Still, we are also always requested to describe in our abstracts clearly what came out with our study to exclude any ambiguity. This helps to reduce such citation problems, but it will never solve the issue fully.

Enrico: ".....inadvertent errors/misunderstandings in quoting literature are common. Purposeful misunderstandings .... are quite rare in my experience.(One never knows but it is quite possible that you are right) The two things are quite different" - however the net result is the same: propagation of a misinformation.

When an author is concerned mainly with composing a sufficiently long list of modern (sic!) references to satisfy an Editor and neither has time for, nor is really interested in analysing results and opinions of other researchers, he/she is bound to make such "inadverent" errors often enough  - but would you classify it as "acting in good faith"? Imho, it can be called a scientific dishonesty (strictly in a Pickwickian sense, of course!).

I do not propose to crucify such authors but to find some way of making such "unintentional lie" a caveat for any author would be useful.

Dear Claus-Christian: "many researchers read titles and abstracts but not the full paper' . 

It was said:"let him who is without sin, cast the first stone". Honestly, I would be neither first nor (n+1)st to throw it. However I have never seen an abstract giving a false presentation of the full paper. Incomplete - yes, presenting black as white - no. Meantime, it is just such mispresentation my original question was about.

It some times happens like a chain reaction, repeatedly done by authors coming in this chain reaction episodes of wrongly citing the same thing which one earlier has done. Yes, it is also write that without reading full paper many things are cited bt title and may be with abstract, also review papers are more cited than the original researcher/paper. Publication burst and also also you give us / pay and we will publish all--- adds to this in a worst way.

I think  this  is a result of  skimming literature ( be it the abstract or the full text) without concentrating and fully understanding what it refers to. This might also result from some authors'  intention to cite as many references as possible or write a specific paper in a limited short time. Although this practice might benefit the cited authors  regarding their h-index, it is  an "unscientific" one.

Summing up this short discussion, I see that many of us have the same experience but virtually nobody maintains that the mis-referencing is a serious misconduct. As for me, I am sure it is. Moreover, I believe that itis not only "perpetrators" (authors) but also reviewers and editors to blame.

Mis-citation sometimes may happen like a chain reaction. Many people can cite without reading the full text of any article. Publication burst may also act as a factor.

Dear Sandip, I've already understood that the problem is not exclusively mine.  The question, however, stands: is something to be done not in this or that particular case or as a preventive  system. 

Hello dear Prof, do you notice this new feature on RG, where MIS-CITATION CAN BE COMMENTED UPON AND HOPEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGED?  THANKS TO RG.

My paper was mis-cited.  I put a feedback comment.  But so far, no action was taken.  At least, I get the satisfaction that I have done the best that I can.  Have a look at the feedback at the end.  Please scroll.  Thanks Prof Boris.

Article An Alphabetical Mnemonic Teaching Strategy for Constructing ...

@do you notice this new feature on RG, where MIS-CITATION CAN BE COMMENTED UPON AND HOPEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGED@ 

No, I did not! Please,  advise  how to find it.