A Meta-Analysis of Studies of Publication Misrepresentation by Applicants to Residency and Fellowship Programs

Wiggins, Michael N

doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3181e2cf2b

Cited by 28 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These figures underscore the importance of studying aspects of misconduct by researchers which do not involve the published literature, many of which have been largely ignored in non-medical fields. For example, the 18 studies on publication misrepresentation by medical residency and fellowship applicants (Wiggins 2010) stand in contrast to the complete lack of similar studies among post-doctoral applicants. Further studies characterizing various forms of professional misconduct outside of medicine would clarify whether they are more prevalent in medicine than other scholarly fields, and reveal the impacts of all forms of professional misconduct on science as a whole.…”

Section: Postdoc-36mentioning

confidence: 81%

“…• More than 1/3 of ORI's findings of misconduct cases involved misrepresentation of data in grant applications; and ''padding'' of credentials in fellowship applications by medical students is well-documented (Wiggins 2010). Since they may contain information that is manipulated for self-promotion, publication lists and preliminary data presented in applications for grants and professional positions should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as manuscripts under review.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media

Zhang

Grieneisen

2012

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Better understanding of research and publishing misconduct can improve strategies to mitigate their occurrence. In this study, we examine various trends among 2,375 articles retracted due to misconduct in all scholarly fields. Proportions of articles retracted due to ''publication misconduct'' (primarily plagiarism and duplicate publication) or ''distrust data or interpretations'' (primarily research artifacts and unexplained irreproducibility of data) differ significantly between PubMed (35 and 59 %, respectively) and non-PubMed (56 and 27 %) articles and between English-and non-English-speaking author affiliation countries. Retraction rates due to any form of misconduct, adjusted for the size of the literature in different disciplines, vary from 0.22 per 100,000 articles in the Humanities to 7.58 in Medicine and 7.69 in Chemistry. The annual rate of article retractions due to misconduct has increased exponentially since 2001, and the percentage of all retractions involving misconduct allegations has grown from 18.5-29.2 % for each year from 1990-1993 to 55.8-71.9 % for each year from 2007-2010. Despite these increases, the prominence of research integrity in the news media has not changed appreciably over the past 20 years. Articles retracted due to misconduct are found in all major scholarly disciplines. The higher rate of plagiarism among authors from non-English speaking countries may diminish if institutions improved their support for the writing of English manuscripts by their scholars. The training of junior scholars on proper codes of research (and publishing) conduct should be embraced by all disciplines, not just by biomedical fields where the perception of misconduct is high.

show abstract

Section: Postdoc-36mentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media

Zhang

Grieneisen

2012

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This surprising result attracted much deserved attention from residency and fellowship program directors, as well as others involved in postgraduate medical education. In a meta-analysis of 18 studies that followed, Wiggins 2 found reports that ranged widely from misrepresentations found for 1.8% to 50% of applicants listing publications and for 0.8% to 16.1% of the total number of applicants. The most recently published study, concerning obstetrics and gynecology applicants, found that 25.5% of applicants listing peer-reviewed articles or abstracts committed ''major errors,'' while 24.1% had articles or abstracts that were unverified.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 This can be accomplished by eliminating unlocated journals for which the accuracy of publication record cannot be verified, as-of-yet unpublished ''in press'' articles, and typographic errors from the counts of misrepresentation. Using these criteria, Wiggins 2 found that no particular study characteristic, including sample size, the percentage of applicants with publications, and the number of data sources, was found to correlate with the percentage of misrepresentation discovered.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seven studies comparing publication misrepresentation rates among FMGs and US medical graduates reported conflicting findings, with 4 studies showing statistically higher rates of misrepresentation among FMGs and 3 showing no difference. [1][2][3][4]7,10 A study regarding misrepresentation by residency applicants to a pathology program has not been published. As pathology is a research-oriented residency, one may expect higher rates of reported publications among applicants.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prevalence and Types of Misrepresentation of Publication Record by Pathology Residency Applicants

Kaley

Bornhorst

Wiggins

et al. 2013

Archives of Pathology &Amp; Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context.-Publication misrepresentation among residency applicants has been demonstrated in various specialties. This study examines the prevalence of publication misrepresentation among US-trained and non-US-trained pathology residency applicants.Objective.-To determine the prevalence of publication misrepresentation in the pathology applicant pool at our institution, to compare the rates of misrepresentation among US-trained and non-US-trained applicants, and to compare results to published results from other medical specialties.Design.-All peer-reviewed journal articles reported on applications to our program in 2010 and 2011 were examined for veracity. Applications from current or past trainees and applications with unverifiable manuscripts were excluded. The type of misrepresentation and the country in which the applicant trained were recorded.Results.-Seven hundred applications were reviewed. Of 319 (46%) reported publications, 25 were from US graduates (8%) and 294 (92%) were from non-US graduates. Eighty-six applications were excluded owing to unverifiable manuscripts. Publication misrepresentations were found in 42 (18%) of the remaining 233 applications. The most common misrepresentations were omission of authors (69%), nonauthorship (14%), and selfpromotion on the author list (12%). A significantly higher percentage of foreign medical graduates listed publications (P , .001). The misrepresentation rate by foreign graduates (19%) did not differ significantly from that of US-trained graduates (13%) (P ¼ .45).Conclusions.-Publication misrepresentation was present among pathology residency applicants. Similar rates were seen among US and non-US applicants. Percentages of misrepresentation among applicants to our pathology program and applicants to other medical specialties (18% and 17%, respectively) were comparable.

show abstract

Misrepresentation by Ophthalmology Residency Applicants

Wiggins¹

2010

Arch Ophthalmol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To determine the percentage of publication misrepresentation among applicants to an ophthalmology residency, to compare that percentage with published percentages from other specialties, and to compare the number of US-trained applicants vs non-US-trained applicants found to misrepresent published articles. Methods: Published articles in peer-reviewed journals listed on residency applications to the Jones Eye Institute from October 10, 2000, to December 1, 2004, were searched, excluding applications that were unavailable or were from current residents and faculty. The type of misrepresentation of published articles and the country of medical school training were recorded. Compared were US-trained applicants vs non-US-trained applicants to determine which group was more likely to list published articles and which group was more likely to have a misrepresented published article. Results: Eight hundred twenty-one of 852 applications (96.4%) were reviewed. Five hundred fifty applicants (67.0%) were from US medical schools, and 271 applicants (33.0%) were from non-US medical schools. Two hundred one applicants (24.5%) listed peer-reviewed published articles. Misrepresentation of published articles was found in 15 applicants (5 US trained and 10 non-US trained). The mean percentage of applicants with misrepresentation per applicant pool was 1.9%, while the mean percentage per applicants listing published articles was 8.1%. The most common misrepresentation found was self-promotion on the author list (50.0%), followed by omission of other authors (25.0%), nonexistent articles (12.5%), and nonauthorship (12.5%). Foreign medical graduates were more likely to list published articles (P = .008) and to have a misrepresented published article (P =.01). Conclusions: Ophthalmology has one of the lowest reported percentages of applicant publication misrepresentation in the literature. Foreign medical graduates were more likely to list published articles and to misrepresent published articles. Self-promotion on the author list was the most common type of misrepresentation found. Residency program directors should request copies of published articles from interviewing applicants.

show abstract

A Meta-Analysis of Studies of Publication Misrepresentation by Applicants to Residency and Fellowship Programs

Cited by 28 publications

References 16 publications

The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media

The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media

Prevalence and Types of Misrepresentation of Publication Record by Pathology Residency Applicants

Misrepresentation by Ophthalmology Residency Applicants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About