Fewer orphans than previously thought?

The editors of IJE have commented on the surprising number of papers in their journal and other journals that fail to be cited even once. According to their most recent calculations, 17% of papers in IJE and 40% of those in Epidemiology achieve no recognition in the scientific literature. These numbers do not seem very plausible, so I decided to check. Using the most recent data available from my publisher, I tracked the citations of research papers published in Epidemiology in 2008. During just these couple of years of follow-up, 96% of our papers had been cited. Being the optimist, I cannot help but trust that the remaining orphans (including one lonely paper from my own research group) will eventually win recognition. This leaves me puzzled as to where the IJE editors got their numbers. Can they recalculate?