Scientific publication misrepresentation among orthopaedic residency applicants

Beaino, Marc El; Hagedorn, John C.; Janney, Cory; Lindsey, Ronald W.

doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.11.036

Cited by 6 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One study [26] evaluating applicants from the 2016 to 2017 academic year reported that 3% (10 of 313) of applicants incorrectly listed authorship order. In contrast, a similar study [12] evaluating applicants from 2017 found incorrect authorship among 15% of applicants (40 of 264). The remaining types of misrepresentation were not consistently reported.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…The remaining types of misrepresentation were not consistently reported. Four studies found examples of an applicant with more than one publication misrepresentation [9, 12, 26, 33]. However, three of the four studies [12, 26, 33] found this to be relatively rare, with an estimated range of 0.3% (one of 323) to 2% (six of 264).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dale et al [10] published the first investigation of research misrepresentation among orthopaedic residency applicants that we are aware of in 1999 and found that 18% (14 of 76) of publications were misrepresented. Over the past 20 years, at least nine more studies evaluating research misrepresentation have been published by orthopaedic residency and fellowship programs, with mixed results [3,8,9,12,13,22,24,26,33]. The inconsistent evidence makes it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from these individual studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What Are the Trends in Research Publication Misrepresentation Among Orthopaedic Residency and Fellowship Applicants From 1996 to 2019? A Systematic Review

Burkhart

Hecht

Karimi

et al. 2023

Clin Orthop Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Because research experience is increasingly important in ranking orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants, determining the accuracy of candidates reporting their scholarly activity is essential. However, disparate and inconsistent findings have made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from individual studies. Questions/purposes In this systematic review, we asked:(1) What percentage of research publications are misrepresented among orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants? (2) What percentage of applications contain one or more example of academic misrepresentation? (3) Is research misrepresentation associated with any individual applicant characteristics? (4) What is the publication status of articles listed by applicants as having been submitted to journals?Methods A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. PubMed, EBSCOhost, Medline, and Google Scholar electronic databases were searched on March 10, 2022, to identify all studies that evaluated research misrepresentation in orthopaedic residency and fellowship applications between January 1, 1995, and March 1, 2022. Articles were included if full-text articles in English were available and the study reported on research misrepresentation among orthopaedic residency or fellowship applicants. Studies investigating nonorthopaedic publications, systematic reviews, case studies, duplicate studies among databases, and gray literature were excluded. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of included studies using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) tool. This is a validated assessment tool that grades noncomparative studies from 0 to 16 and studies with control groups from 0 to 24, based on eight criteria related to study design, outcomes assessed, and followup. All included articles were noncomparative studies, so the maximum score here was 16, with higher scores indicating better study quality. The mean MINORS score was 13 6 1 in the studies we included. The final analysis included 10 studies with 5119 applicants. Eight studies evaluated orthopaedic residency applicants and two evaluated fellowship applicants. The applicant classes ranged from 1996 to 2019. Research misrepresentation was defined among studies as nonauthorship of an existing article, claimed authorship of a nonexistent article, or incorrect listing of authorship order for an existing article. Each study's findings and Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Are the Trends in Research Publication Misrepresentation Among Orthopaedic Residency and Fellowship Applicants From 1996 to 2019? A Systematic Review

Burkhart

Hecht

Karimi

et al. 2023

Clin Orthop Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among neurosurgery program directors, emphasis on research is almost certainly higher. As such, the so-called publishing "arms race" among neurosurgery applicants is unsurprising, but requires effort by residency programs to equitably and objectively assess applicant research, especially given that the amount of reported research exceeds what can be reliably verified through the web [5,[11][12][13][14][15]42]. Several limitations affect the interpretation of our results and provide opportunities for future work.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is made particularly clear by recent studies highlighting the increased emphasis on publishing output in applications for neurosurgery and other selective specialties [2,[5][6][7][8][9][10]. Importantly, the rise in applicant publishing coincides with an abundance of non-indexed research items (e.g., conference posters, non-peer reviewed book chapters, or peer-reviewed research claimed to be "accepted" or "in press") which are difficult to verify or evaluate for research quality [5,[11][12][13][14][15][16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of academic publishing output among 1634 successful applicants in the 2011–2018 neurosurgery residency match

Sheppard

Lagman

Nguyen

et al. 2021

Journal of the Neurological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Research productivity is a key criterion for applicant selection reported by residency program directors. Research volume reported on neurosurgery residency applications has risen steadily over the past decade. Objective: Perform retrospective bibliographic searches of successful applicants who matched into U.S. neurosurgery residency programs from 2011 to 2018, and assess the relationship between academic publishing and residency placement. Methods: Gender, MD/PhD status, U.S. News research ranking of medical school, and international medical graduate status (IMG) were determined for 1634 successful applicants from 2011 to 2018. Indexed publications before and after the start of residency were tabulated by Scopus®. Publication counts were stratified by first author, basic/clinical science, case reports, reviews, or other research. We then compared publishing trends across demographic variables and match cohorts. Results: Average pre-residency publications increased from 2.6 [1.7, 3.4] in 2011 to 6.5 [5.1, 7.9] in 2018. Men, PhD-holders, Top 20 and Top 40 U.S. medical school graduates, and IMGs had higher pre-residency publication counts overall. After stratifying by match cohort, however, there was no significant effect of gender on preresidency publications. Applicants matching into residency programs with highly ranked affiliated hospitals had significantly higher pre-residency publications. Conclusion: Publishing volume of successful neurosurgery applicants in the U.S. has risen recently and is associated with the stature of matched residency programs. Given the gap between verifiable and claimed research on residency applications, attention is needed to objectively evaluate research credentials in the selection process. The impending phase out of USMLE step 1 scores may increase emphasis on academic productivity.

show abstract

Trends in Academic Misrepresentation in Neurological Surgery Residency Applicants: A 2-Year Analysis

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific publication misrepresentation among orthopaedic residency applicants

Cited by 6 publications

References 12 publications

What Are the Trends in Research Publication Misrepresentation Among Orthopaedic Residency and Fellowship Applicants From 1996 to 2019? A Systematic Review

What Are the Trends in Research Publication Misrepresentation Among Orthopaedic Residency and Fellowship Applicants From 1996 to 2019? A Systematic Review

Analysis of academic publishing output among 1634 successful applicants in the 2011–2018 neurosurgery residency match

Trends in Academic Misrepresentation in Neurological Surgery Residency Applicants: A 2-Year Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About