背景:因为研究经验对骨科住院医师和研究金申请人的排名越来越重要,确定候选人报告其学术活动的准确性至关重要。然而,不同和不一致的发现使得很难从个别研究中得出有意义的结论。
目的:在本系统综述中,我们问:(1)在骨科住院医师和研究金申请人中,有多少百分比的研究出版物被虚假陈述?(2)有多少百分比的申请包含一个或多个学术虚假陈述的例子?(3)研究虚假陈述是否与任何申请人的个人特征有关?(4)申请人列出的已提交期刊的文章的发表状态如何?PubMed,EBSCOhost,Medline,和GoogleScholar电子数据库于2022年3月10日进行了搜索,以确定所有评估1995年1月1日至2022年3月1日之间骨科住院医师和研究金申请中研究虚假陈述的研究。如果有英文全文文章,则包括文章,并且该研究报告了骨科住院医师或研究金申请人的研究虚假陈述。调查非骨科出版物的研究,系统评价,案例研究,数据库之间的重复研究,灰色文献被排除在外。两名评审员使用非随机研究方法学指数(MINORS)工具独立评估纳入研究的质量。这是一个经过验证的评估工具,根据与研究设计相关的八个标准,将非比较研究从0到16进行评分,将对照组的研究从0到24进行评分。评估结果,和后续行动。所有纳入的文章都是非比较研究,所以这里的最高分是16分,分数越高表明研究质量越好.在我们纳入的研究中,平均MINORS评分为13±1。最终分析包括5119名申请人的10项研究。八项研究评估了骨科住院医师申请人,两项评估了奖学金申请人。申请人的课程从1996年到2019年不等。研究失实陈述在研究中被定义为现有文章的非作者,声称是一篇不存在的文章的作者,或现有文章的作者顺序列表不正确。每个研究的发现和研究虚假陈述的定义都被认为可以讨论总体趋势。虚假陈述的百分比按虚假陈述类型进一步细分。还评估了申请人的特征和提交物品的目的地。鉴于研究中申请人之间的潜在重叠,没有进行汇总分析,结果以叙述性总结的形式呈现。
结果:总体出版物失实陈述的百分比估计在1%(1100中的13)和21%(131中的27)之间,最近的研究报告总体文章被误报的比例较低。我们发现的大多数研究都声称,不存在的文章的作者身份是最常见的虚假陈述类型。现有文章的非作者身份和不正确的作者顺序不太常见。在1998年至2017年期间,至少有一次虚假陈述的申请比例约为20%。大多数研究没有发现申请人的特征,例如匹配结果,人口统计标记,或者学术记录,这始终与候选人歪曲他或她的研究资历的几率更高相关。最后,提交给期刊的文章中大约有一半继续发表,三分之一的人会去不同的影响因子较低的期刊。
结论:我们的系统评价发现,在过去20年中,骨科住院医师和研究金申请人的总体发表虚假陈述的百分比普遍较低。然而,大约五分之一的申请至少有一次研究失实,2%的人对报告的出版物有多次虚假陈述。没有一致的申请人特征与较高的研究虚假陈述几率相关。此外,大多数被列为提交期刊发表的文章最终都发表了。
结论:尽管总体出版物虚假陈述的减少令人鼓舞,我们发现五分之一的申请人有研究失实陈述,这令人担忧。鉴于不断发展的应用过程,骨科住院医师和研究金计划必须确保与申请人自我报告的信息相关的完整性。这些发现还有助于鼓励参与申请筛选和决策过程的教职员工限制与被认为与错误陈述的高几率相关的申请人人口统计学相关的偏见。此外,管理机构和计划领导应评估验证未发表作品的方法,并为申请人提供在整个申请周期中提供出版物更新的机会。
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.
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?
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 follow-up. 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 ± 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 definition of research misrepresentation were considered to allow for a discussion of overall trends. The percentage of misrepresentation was further broken down by the misrepresentation type. Applicant characteristics and destination of submitted articles were also evaluated. Given the potential overlap between applicants among the studies, no pooled analysis was conducted, and results are presented as a narrative summary.
The percentage of overall publication misrepresentation was estimated to range between 1% (13 of 1100) and 21% (27 of 131), with more-recent studies reporting a lower proportion of overall articles misrepresented. Most studies we found claimed that authorship of a nonexistent article was the most common type of misrepresentation. Nonauthorship of an existing article and incorrect authorship order were less common. The percentage of applications with at least one misrepresentation was approximately 20% between 1998 and 2017. Most studies found no applicant characteristics, such as match outcomes, demographic markers, or academic records, that were consistently associated with a higher odds of the candidate misrepresenting his or her research credentials. Finally, approximately half of the articles listed as submitted to journals went on to publication, with one-third going to a different journal with a lower Impact Factor.
Our systematic
review found that the percentage of overall publication misrepresentations among orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants has generally been low over the past 20 years. However, approximately one-fifth of applications had at least one research misrepresentation, with 2% having multiple misrepresentations on reported publications. There were no consistent applicant characteristics associated with higher odds of research misrepresentation. Additionally, most of the articles listed as submitted to journals for publication were ultimately published.
Although the decrease in overall publication misrepresentation is encouraging, our finding that one-fifth of applicants have research misrepresentation is a cause for concern. In light of a continually evolving application process, orthopaedic residency and fellowship programs must ensure there is integrity related to information that is self-reported by applicants. These findings also serve to encourage faculty members involved in the application screening and decision process to limit biases related to applicant demographics perceived to be associated with a high odds of misrepresentation. Furthermore, governing agencies and program leadership should evaluate methods of verifying unpublished work and provide opportunities for applicants to give publication updates throughout the application cycle.