Background: The use of older data and references is becoming increasingly disfavored for publication. A myopic focus on newer research risks losing sight of important research questions already addressed by now-invisible older studies. This creates a 'Groundhog Day' effect as illustrated by the 1993 movie of this name in which the protagonist has to relive the same day (Groundhog Day) over and over and over within a world with no memory of it. This article examines the consequences of the recent preference for newer data and references in current publication practices and is intended to stimulate new consideration of the utility of selected older data and references for the advancement of scientific knowledge.
Methods: Examples from the literature are used to exemplify the value of older data and older references. To illustrate the recency of references published in original medical research articles in a selected sample of recent academic medical journals, original research articles were examined in recent issues in selected psychiatry, medicine, and surgery journals.
Results: The literature examined reflected this article's initial assertion that journals are emphasizing the publication of research with newer data and more recent references.
Conclusions: The current valuation of newer data above older data fails to appreciate the fact that new data eventually become old, and that old data were once new. The bias demonstrated in arbitrary policies pertaining to older data and older references can be addressed by instituting comparable treatment of older and newer data and references.
Keywords: Citation; data; recency; recent; reference.