Department of Anesthesiology, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Anesth Analg. 2011 Mar;112(3):674-7. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182042d4d. Epub 2010 Dec 14.
Publication misrepresentation has been documented among applicants for residency positions in several specialties. However, these data are not available for anesthesiology applicants. Our purpose in this study was to document the prevalence of publication misrepresentation among applicants to a single anesthesiology residency, to compare anesthesiology publication misrepresentation data with similar data in other specialties, and to determine how often publication misrepresentation leads to an unfair competitive advantage in the application process.
Applications to the Mayo School of Graduate Medical Education anesthesiology core residency in Rochester, Minnesota, were reviewed for publication misrepresentations using Medline and PubMed databases, Mayo Clinic library databases, and/or review by a qualified medical librarian. Misrepresented publications underwent further review to identify fraudulent publications and/or citation errors that provide an unfair competitive advantage.
The authors found that 2.4% of the applications (13 of 532) included fraudulent publications, 6.6% of the applications with at least 1 publication (13 of 197) included ≥1 that was fraudulent, and 2.9% of all cited publications (15 of 522) were fraudulent. In addition, 0.9% of the applications (5 of 532) contained a citation error that, although not grossly fraudulent, could have favorably affected the applicant's competitiveness for a residency position.
Misrepresented publications were fairly common among anesthesiology residency applicants. However, only a small percentage of applicants listed misrepresented publications that were clearly fraudulent or contained a citation error that conferred a competitive advantage. Identification of fraudulent publications on Electronic Residency Application Service applications is important to maintain the integrity of the application process.
在多个专业的住院医师职位申请者中，已经记录到发表作品失实的情况。然而，在麻醉学申请者中，并没有这些数据。我们的研究目的是记录单一麻醉学住院医师申请者中发表作品失实的发生率，将麻醉学发表作品失实数据与其他专业的类似数据进行比较，并确定发表作品失实在申请过程中导致不公平竞争优势的频率。
使用 Medline 和 PubMed 数据库、梅奥诊所图书馆数据库和/或由合格医学图书馆员进行审查，对明尼苏达州罗切斯特市梅奥医学院研究生医学教育麻醉学核心住院医师的申请进行发表作品失实审查。对有失实发表作品的申请进行进一步审查，以确定是否存在欺诈性出版物和/或提供不公平竞争优势的引用错误。
作者发现，2.4%（532 份申请中的 13 份）的申请包含欺诈性出版物，至少有 1 篇发表作品的申请中，6.6%（197 份申请中的 13 份）包含至少 1 篇欺诈性出版物，所有引用出版物中，2.9%（522 篇引用出版物中的 15 篇）是欺诈性的。此外，0.9%（532 份申请中的 5 份）的申请包含引用错误，尽管不是严重的欺诈行为，但可能对申请人的住院医师职位竞争力产生有利影响。
在麻醉学住院医师申请者中，失实发表作品相当常见。然而，只有一小部分申请者列出了明显欺诈或包含引用错误的失实发表作品，这些错误赋予了申请者竞争优势。在电子住院医师申请服务申请中识别欺诈性出版物对于维护申请过程的完整性很重要。
