In a surprising revelation, a study published in the Christmas issue of The BMJ has found that the term “recent” in biomedical journals often refers to studies that are far from contemporary. Researchers from Spain analyzed 1,000 biomedical articles and discovered that the age of references described as “recent” ranged from 0 to 37 years, with a median age of four years and an average of 5.5 years.
The study highlights a significant discrepancy between the perception and reality of what constitutes “recent” research in scientific literature. The most common lag was just one year, yet nearly 18% of these “recent” references were at least a decade old. Notably, 26 citations had a lag of 20 years or more, and four articles cited studies that were over 30 years old.
Disparities Across Medical Specialties
Citation patterns varied significantly across different medical fields. Specialties such as critical care, infectious diseases, genetics, immunology, and radiology tended to have shorter median lags of around two years. In contrast, fields like nephrology, veterinary medicine, and dentistry exhibited much longer citation lags, ranging from 8.5 to 14 years.
This variation suggests that some areas of medicine may be more dynamic and rapidly evolving, while others rely on foundational studies that remain relevant over longer periods. The findings raise questions about how the pace of research and publication might influence the perceived recency of references.
Expressions and Their Implications
The study also examined the specific expressions used to denote recency. Terms such as “recent approach,” “recent discovery,” and “recent study” were often linked to older references. Conversely, phrases like “recent publication” and “recent article” were associated with more current studies.
This distinction underscores the flexibility of “recent” as a rhetorical device in scientific writing. It suggests that authors may use the term strategically, depending on the context and the intended impact on readers.
Global Patterns and Temporal Trends
Interestingly, the citation patterns were consistent across different world regions and showed gradual improvement over time. Articles published between 2020 and 2025 exhibited the shortest lags, indicating a trend towards more contemporary citations in recent years. Additionally, journals with high impact factors (12 or higher) tended to cite more up-to-date research.
These findings suggest a positive shift towards timeliness in scientific citations, possibly driven by increased access to digital resources and the accelerated pace of research dissemination.
Concluding Observations
The authors of the study caution that their findings are observational and focus solely on the age, not the relevance, of cited studies. They also analyzed only the first eligible “recent” expression per article. Nonetheless, the research provides valuable insights into the use of “recent” as a flexible term in scientific discourse.
“This playful analysis suggests that ‘recent’ can mean anything from last season to last century. Readers, reviewers, and editors may want to take ‘recent’ claims with a grain of chronological salt,” the authors conclude.
The study’s findings highlight the importance of critical evaluation of scientific literature and the need for transparency in the reporting of research timelines. As the scientific community continues to evolve, the definition of “recent” may need to be reconsidered to ensure clarity and accuracy in scholarly communication.
