A study examined the nature and frequency of faults and errors in reference list entries and direct quotes selected from all 1988 issues of 16 social and biological science journals. All departures from the original (additions, omissions, or changes) were labelled as either a word or punctuation deviation. Of the 402 quotes verified, 33.33% deviated from the original, with several having more than one fault or error. Of 224 articles that had both quotes and the associated reference, nearly 60% had faults or errors in either the quote or the associated reference list entry/entries. Although a review of the individual journal percentages suggested that writers who published experimental research tended to have a lower percentage of faults or errors, the percentages still implied that writers do not exercise sufficient care in preparing and editing their manuscripts. Findings show both interesting and humorous examples of errors, and examples from quotes where the apparent intent of the original writer(s) was abridged, distorted, or misused by the quoter. Basic retraining and attention to basic research practices for people preparing for careers in scholarly research and writing is recommended to prevent this from becoming a compounding problem. (PRA)