American Psychologist, Vol 80(7), Oct 2025, 992-993; doi:10.1037/amp0001571
Marcus et al. (2025) examined the prevalence of miscitation in amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs provided by the American Psychological Association (APA) to courts for the purpose of informing them about relevant scientific findings that may help guide decisions on legal cases. They found that 7% of citations in amicus briefs completely misrepresented prior research, and another 20% omitted key qualifiers of study findings. The purpose of the present commentary was to discuss miscitation in the context of amicus briefs, as well as in the broader context of psychological science. We argue that miscitation represents a potentially serious and questionable research practice that has implications for the field, as well as for applied extensions of psychology. Ultimately, it will be up to psychological scientists and the APA to prevent potentially harmful outcomes associated with miscitation by taking steps to ensure that prior work is accurately cited and reported. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)