Misrepresentation of research citations among medical school faculty applicants

Assessing Trustworthiness in Research: A Pilot Study on CV Verification

When scholars express concern about trust in science, they often focus on whether the public trusts research findings. This study explores a different dimension of trust and examines whether and how frequently researchers misrepresent their research accomplishments when applying for a faculty position. We collected all of the vitae submitted for faculty positions at a large research university for 1 year and reviewed a 10% sample for accuracy. Of the 180 applicants whose vitae we analyzed, 141 (78%) claimed to have at least one publication, and 79 of these 141 (56%) listed at least one publication that was unverifiable or inaccurate in a self-promoting way. We discuss the nature and implications of our findings, and suggest best practices for both applicants and search committees in presenting and reviewing vitae.

Publication misrepresentation among neurosurgery residency applicants: an increasing problem

OBJECT

Misrepresentation of scholarly achievements is a recognized phenomenon, well documented in numerous fields, yet the accuracy of reporting remains dependent on the honor principle. Therefore, honest self-reporting is of paramount importance to maintain scientific integrity in neurosurgery. The authors had observed a trend toward increasing numbers of publications among applicants for neurosurgery residency at Vanderbilt University and undertook this study to determine whether this change was a result of increased academic productivity, inflated reporting, or both. They also aimed to identify application variables associated with inaccurate citations.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed the residency applications submitted to their neurosurgery department in 2006 (n = 148) and 2012 (n = 194). The applications from 2006 were made via SF Match and those from 2012 were made using the Electronic Residency Application Service. Publications reported as “accepted” or “in press” were verified via online search of Google Scholar, PubMed, journal websites, and direct journal contact. Works were considered misrepresented if they did not exist, incorrectly listed the applicant as first author, or were incorrectly listed as peer reviewed or published in a printed journal rather than an online only or non-peer-reviewed publication. Demographic data were collected, including applicant sex, medical school ranking and country, advanced degrees, Alpha Omega Alpha membership, and USMLE Step 1 score. Zero-inflated negative binomial regression was used to identify predictors of misrepresentation.

RESULTS

Using univariate analysis, between 2006 and 2012 the percentage of applicants reporting published works increased significantly (47% vs 97%, p < 0.001). However, the percentage of applicants with misrepresentations (33% vs 45%) also increased. In 2012, applicants with a greater total of reported works (p < 0.001) and applicants from unranked US medical schools (those not ranked by US News & World Report) were more likely to have erroneous citations (p = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of legitimate and misrepresented scholarly works reported by applicants to the authors’ neurosurgery residency program increased during the past 6 years. Misrepresentation is more common in applicants from unranked US medical schools and those with a greater number of reported works on their application. This trend is concerning in a profession where trustworthiness is vital. To preserve integrity in the field, programs should consider verifying citations prior to submitting their rank lists.

Unverifiable publications in otolaryngology residency applications

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of unverifiable ("ghost") publications in applications to an otolaryngology residency program through the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS), correlate with applicant characteristics, and determine if incidence changed after the addition of PubMed (PMID) numbers in 2008.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional study of residency applications before and after inclusion of PMID numbers at an academic otolaryngology program.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Applications for 2007 and 2008 were reviewed. Publications were verified against Medline, Google Scholar, PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and Google. Ghost publications were defined as journals, books, abstracts, or posters that could not be verified as presented, published, or including the applicant author.

RESULTS

In total, 489 applications were reviewed: 243 before PMID numbers were requested and 246 after. Of 2300 listed publications, 125 (5%) were not actual publications and 460 (20%) were in pending status. Forty-five percent (775/1715) could not be verified: 660 of 953 (69%) abstracts/posters, 18 of 47 (38%) chapters, and 97 of 715 (14%) journal articles. Abstracts/posters and book chapters were hardest to verify. The proportion of overall reported publications that could be verified was lower following the addition of PMID to the ERAS application (P = .0003), and the proportion of verifiable journal articles was unchanged from 86.0% to 86.9% (P = .62). Unlike previous findings, gender and medical school ranking were not associated with ghost publications.

CONCLUSION

A substantial number of publications, especially book chapters and posters/abstracts, listed on otolaryngology residency applications could not be verified. The addition of the PMID to applications did not reduce the number of ghost journal publications.

"Ghost" publications among applicants to a general surgery residency program

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence of potentially fraudulent (or "ghost") publications in applications to a general surgery residency program.

METHODS

Electronic Residency Application Services applications submitted in 2005 to the general surgery residency program were reviewed in an IRB-approved study. No identifiers were collected. Publications were checked against Medline, PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and Google. Nonverifiable publications were then submitted to the medical librarian for verification. Ghost publications were defined as journals, books, or meetings that cannot be verified; verified journals without the listed publication; or verified publications without an applicant author. Data analyses were performed using univariate and multivariate regression analysis for nonparametric data. A p value < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Four hundred ninety-three applications were received. Thirty-one percent (150 of 493) of applicants listed a total of 596 publications, including 30 abstracts, 359 journal articles, and 207 chapters. Thirty-three percent (196 of 596) of the publications could not be verified: 7 abstracts, 177 journal articles, and 12 chapters. The distribution of ghost publications was skewed toward the journals subgroup (p < 0.001). Positive predictors of ghost publications were age and foreign medical school. The sole negative predictor was enrollment in a top-10 US research medical school.

CONCLUSION

A disturbingly substantial fraction of publications listed on Electronic Residency Application Services applications cannot be verified. This might indicate a need for greater mentorship and oversight for medical school applicants. It is unknown whether this behavior predicts lack of integrity in other professional settings.

A case for a duty to feed the hungry: GM plants and the third world

This article is concerned with a discussion of the plausibility of the claim that GM technology has the potential to provide the hungry with sufficient food for subsistence. Following a brief outline of the potential applications of GM in this context, a history of the green revolution and its impact will be discussed in relation to the current developing world agriculture situation. Following a contemporary analysis of malnutrition, the claim that GM technology has the potential to provide the hungry with sufficient nourishment will be discussed within the domain of moral philosophy to determine whether there exists a moral obligation to pursue this end if and only if the technology proves to be relatively safe and effective. By using Peter Singer's duty of moral rescue, I argue that we have a moral duty to assist the third world through the distribution of such GM plants. I conclude the paper by demonstrating that my argument can be supported by applying a version of the Precautionary Principle on the grounds that doing nothing might be worse for the current situation.

Misrepresentation of Publications Among Radiation Oncology Residency Applicants

INTRODUCTION

Authorship misrepresentations have been described for residency and fellowship applications for various medical specialties. This study assessed the prevalence of misrepresented publications in radiation oncology residency applications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors reviewed 117 applications to their residency program for a single 2004 position offered through the National Resident Matching Program. Publications listed on the applications were verified for accuracy, with the results and applicants' demographic information recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 49 applicants (42%) claimed authorship of published research citations. The number of published citations averaged 3.6 per applicant (range, 1-23). Of the applicants reporting citations, 22% (11 of 49) listed inaccurate citation information. Overall, 9% of the citations (15 of 174) were considered misrepresentations, with 9% of the total number of applicants (11 of 117) responsible for inaccurate bibliographies. There was a significant relationship of United States Medical Licensing Examination score with publication misrepresentation, in which those with scores of 235 or greater who listed publications were more than 7 times more likely to have inaccurately listed citations (odds ratio, 7.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-52.31; P = .04).

CONCLUSION

The misrepresentation of bibliographic citations does exist among radiation oncology residency applicants. Using a comprehensive search, the authors found that 22% of those who had listed at least 1 article had misrepresented publications on their applications.

Misrepresentation of research publications among orthopedic surgery fellowship applicants: a comparison with documented misrepresentations in other fields

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective study was used to review fellowship applications over 3 years.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the prevalence of research misrepresentation in orthopedic fellowship applications, and to compare such activity between subspecialties (e.g., spine, sports, hand).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Competition for orthopedic surgery fellowships is intense. The applicant pool includes orthopedic, plastic, and general surgeons, as well as neurosurgeons. Residency and fellowship training programs in other disciplines have documented shocking levels of misrepresentation in the curriculum vitae of prospective applicants. However, no study has looked at orthopedic residents applying for subspecialty fellowship programs.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis investigated 280 applications for fellowship positions in the department of orthopedic surgery at the authors' academic institution from 1996 to 1998 inclusively. To allow for press and publication delays, a minimum 24-month follow-up period was instituted. The listings of applicants' research publications were analyzed for evidence of misrepresentation through an exhaustive literature search. Only the most obvious confirmable discrepancies were labeled as misrepresentations. The results then were compared with those found in studies conducted in other fields: gastroenterology fellowship, emergency medicine residency, pediatric residency, dermatology residency, orthopedic residency, and medical faculty applications.

RESULTS

Among 280 (54%) applicants for orthopedic surgery fellowships, 151 claimed journal publications. It was found that 16 (10.6%) of these 151 applicants had misrepresented their citations. This rate was highest in spine fellowship applicants (20%). However, considering the numbers available, this was not significantly different among the various subspecialty fellowship applicants (P > 0.1). In addition, various demographic data did not correlate with the rate of misrepresentation (P > 0.1). These results are comparable with those reported in other medical fields (P > 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Misrepresentation occurs in orthopedic fellowship applications at a rate comparable with that observed in other fields. This rate is not different among the various subspecialties in orthopedics. Policies that may lessen the incidence of falsification on curriculum vitae should be instituted in an attempt to curb such activity.

Misrepresentation of publications by radiology residency applicants

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The authors' purpose was to determine the extent of misrepresentation of research publications by radiology resident applicants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors reviewed 379 consecutive applications, including curricula vitae, for a radiology residency program in 1996. All reported publications and "in-press" articles were checked by means of a MEDLINE search.

RESULTS

Of the 379 applicants, 108 were from medical schools in the United States, and 271 were from international medical schools. Seventy-three applicants listed articles published or in press on their applications (24 U.S., 49 international applicants). Of 286 separate citations in the applications, 105 were found with the MEDLINE search, and 181 were not found. Of the latter, 168 cited journals were not indexed in MEDLINE or the applicants did not include sufficient information to verify their existence. Thirteen citations (from eight applicants; three U.S., five international) were not found even though they cited journals indexed by MEDLINE.

CONCLUSION

Of all applicants reporting publications, 11% likely misrepresented them on their applications. A large percentage of citations, however, could not be verified because of insufficient information in the citation or claimed publication in a journal not available on MEDLINE. Radiology residency program directors should be aware of this uncommon, but important, problem.