Randy S Hebert1, Cheri G Smith, Scott M Wright. 1. John Hopkins Bayview Medical Center and Harrison Medical Library, John Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. hebertrs@msx.upmc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High rates of authorship misrepresentation have been documented among medical trainees. OBJECTIVE: To assess misrepresentation among internal medicine residency applicants while comparing searches used by previous authors (searches 1 and 2) to a more comprehensive strategy (search 3). DESIGN: Review of 497 residency applications. SETTING: Two university-based internal medicine residency programs. MEASUREMENTS: Search 1 was limited to MEDLINE. Search 2 added Current Contents, Science Citation Index, and BIOSIS and included searching journals by hand. Search 3 added seven other databases and contacts to librarians, editors, and coauthors. RESULTS: 224 applicants reported 634 articles; 630 (99%) were verified. The number of applicants with misrepresented citations varied depending on the search used (56 applicants [25%] in search 1 vs. 34 applicants [15%] in search 2 vs. 4 applicants [1.8%] in search 3). CONCLUSIONS: Using a comprehensive search, we found substantially less misrepresentation than had been reported. Previous studies probably overestimated the magnitude of the problem.
BACKGROUND: High rates of authorship misrepresentation have been documented among medical trainees. OBJECTIVE: To assess misrepresentation among internal medicine residency applicants while comparing searches used by previous authors (searches 1 and 2) to a more comprehensive strategy (search 3). DESIGN: Review of 497 residency applications. SETTING: Two university-based internal medicine residency programs. MEASUREMENTS: Search 1 was limited to MEDLINE. Search 2 added Current Contents, Science Citation Index, and BIOSIS and included searching journals by hand. Search 3 added seven other databases and contacts to librarians, editors, and coauthors. RESULTS: 224 applicants reported 634 articles; 630 (99%) were verified. The number of applicants with misrepresented citations varied depending on the search used (56 applicants [25%] in search 1 vs. 34 applicants [15%] in search 2 vs. 4 applicants [1.8%] in search 3). CONCLUSIONS: Using a comprehensive search, we found substantially less misrepresentation than had been reported. Previous studies probably overestimated the magnitude of the problem.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bioethics and Professional Ethics; Empirical Approach