peace2014 Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 http://news.nationalpost.com/health/nearly-one-in-four-canadian-medical-grads-may-be-fudging-claims-on-of-being-published-on-their-resumes I thought this was a pretty good read and it shows how competitive and cut throat some people are when applying to residency positions. Do people actually do this? Isn't this really immoral and unethical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmd7 Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 I'm sure people do. There's also a growing market for paid-for-publishing journals (you do have to pay money to publish regardless, but these journals claim to be "peer-reviewed" when in all actuality they aren't really and you just pay them enough and they'll publish anything), as well as journals paying for impact factor by paying people to cite their papers in other shady journals that accept papers that were paid for but not peer-reviewed. And that's not even touching the tip of the academic dishonesty iceberg. There are people who steal other's ideas and apply for grants with them to get the research money, people who purposefully plagiarize, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
older Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Yeah. First lying about ECs on med school application, then lying about publications when applying for residency. Where does it end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oshaku Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 ,,, can't people just go on pubmed or google scholar and check whether a publication is faked? Yeah. First lying about ECs on med school application, then lying about publications when applying for residency. Where does it end? it doesn't *cough* Wakefield *cough* Seriously though, I worked with a guy who did one of the early gene therapy studies, which got nixed because a number of his kids got leukemia. Well, apparently his postdoc didn't like that his study got stopped so some years later, he tried again, only this time 100% of the kids got leukemia. I don't doubt some amount of lying got the second study started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Yeah. First lying about ECs on med school application, then lying about publications when applying for residency. Where does it end? I don't think it does. There are people unencumbered by moral compasses in every field. Medicine's supposedly noble nature doesn't make it immune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 So do admission standards need to change or do we just pass this off as something that happens in every profession? Despite not every profession having to deal with vulnerable patients who are putting their lives in other people's hands. Can we even avoid or limit something like this? 1 in 4 seems exceedingly high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oshaku Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Admissions need to do a better job of verifying pubs (especially since it's so easy to do!) Publications a centralized system of verification. If it doesn't have a pubmed ID, or DOI number, or ISBN number (for books), then it's not a pub. These sources don't show stuff like small conference abstracts, but when you're applying for residency with 124 out of 182 applicants claiming to have published, conference abstracts shouldn't be included anyway. And if it is included, it's just padding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralk Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Not a huge surprise and, as the article notes, there can be a benign reason for the discrepancies. My "first" publication was like that. The article was submitted and, last I heard, accepted - yet three years later, it still hasn't been published. I included that publication on a job application prior to Med School, because at the time, I thought it was just awaiting publication. I was clear that it was not yet published and never included it on my Med School applications, but these things happen. Unless you're the submitting author, you're kind of in the dark about the true status of the article. I had largely lost contact with my supervisor by the time I started to doubt whether it ever would be published, so I have no idea what changed after I was told it had been accepted for publication. Obviously, this item is not on my CV now. I agree, however, that claims of journal authorship should be verified. It's easy to do - in many cases, you can search an applicant's publication list by their name. Even honest mistakes are still misrepresentations that should be screened for. Conference presentations are tougher to verify and more than a few programs do care about them as part of an applicant's research score (particularly if an applicant does not have a publication, which is the case for a good number medical students). Some conferences, such as the higher-end international conferences, can be quite competitive in terms of getting a talk, harder than even getting a publication in some cases, so they certainly do count. There's more than a little exaggeration on items like that on CVs, and it's very difficult to verify or refute those claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uwopremed Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 There are people that scammed their way into meds, then scammed their way into residency, and then even scam their way within residency and get by barely passing their board exams to go "practice" on society. A small number - but not as rare as you think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amichel Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 I think expecting the majority of applicants to have a publication is insane to begin with. I feel like, as a medical student, getting a publication is pretty hit and miss and depends on lots of factors like who your preceptors are (meeting contacts), what the project is (some take way longer), whether you join a study that's almost complete, etc, etc... But I am not a residency program director and that's just me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 when reviewing apps I track down each paper mentioned and verify. Takes a while but you aren't slipping through on my watch. If you lie that can spread fast - PDs talk to each other. You can easily blackball yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soyouthinkyoucandance Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 ,,, can't people just go on pubmed or google scholar and check whether a publication is faked? it doesn't *cough* Wakefield *cough* Seriously though, I worked with a guy who did one of the early gene therapy studies, which got nixed because a number of his kids got leukemia. Well, apparently his postdoc didn't like that his study got stopped so some years later, he tried again, only this time 100% of the kids got leukemia. I don't doubt some amount of lying got the second study started. Uhhh, that's aggravated assault isn't it? You can't lie to get a study created knowing the reason it got stopped earlier was because it was causing leukemia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Uhhh, that's aggravated assault isn't it? You can't lie to get a study created knowing the reason it got stopped earlier was because it was causing leukemia. it is criminal for sure. Part of the problem is the early research in cancers etc (particularly leukemia) was littered with people who used brutal tactics that happened to work (like giving chemo to apparently healthy recovering kids - and when they died figure that problem was simply not enough chemo so redoubled the efforts). Very interesting story about medical ethics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 I would call it homicide. Actually, the tobacco industry lied and now has a class action judgement for $15 Billion against it in the province of Quebec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goleafsgochris Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Yeah. First lying about ECs on med school application, then lying about publications when applying for residency. Where does it end? I also don't think its as rare as some people think. I don't think many people tell "big lies", but I would say a lot of ppl who got into med at least "exaggerated" their ECs. Similarly, almost 100% of ppl "lie" about their motivations/reasons for applying during both med and residency interviews. In a way its really a gray area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oshaku Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Not a huge surprise and, as the article notes, there can be a benign reason for the discrepancies. My "first" publication was like that. The article was submitted and, last I heard, accepted - yet three years later, it still hasn't been published. I included that publication on a job application prior to Med School, because at the time, I thought it was just awaiting publication. I was clear that it was not yet published and never included it on my Med School applications, but these things happen. Unless you're the submitting author, you're kind of in the dark about the true status of the article. I had largely lost contact with my supervisor by the time I started to doubt whether it ever would be published, so I have no idea what changed after I was told it had been accepted for publication. Obviously, this item is not on my CV now. I agree, however, that claims of journal authorship should be verified. It's easy to do - in many cases, you can search an applicant's publication list by their name. Even honest mistakes are still misrepresentations that should be screened for. Conference presentations are tougher to verify and more than a few programs do care about them as part of an applicant's research score (particularly if an applicant does not have a publication, which is the case for a good number medical students). Some conferences, such as the higher-end international conferences, can be quite competitive in terms of getting a talk, harder than even getting a publication in some cases, so they certainly do count. There's more than a little exaggeration on items like that on CVs, and it's very difficult to verify or refute those claims. That's why you indicate whether it's submitted/accepted and in prep (though I've heard some places only count pubs that have been at least submitted). Submitted 3 years ago and still not published is a bit suspicious. I'm pretty sure the higher end international conferences publisher their list of speakers/abstracts online, but it is definitely harder to verify. I don't expect most med students to have publications, and I was pretty surprised to read the stats in the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makingfetchhappen Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 when reviewing apps I track down each paper mentioned and verify. Takes a while but you aren't slipping through on my watch. If you lie that can spread fast - PDs talk to each other. You can easily blackball yourself. This is what I thought of and suspected when I read the article. People in all fields talk to one another and making up a publication is exactly the sort of thing that earns someone a bad reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnGrisham Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 What's the fuss? 30 people over a 4 year span "misrepresented" their publications. So it could've been simply honest mistakes or lack of clarity on their roles etc. I dont see the article mentioning blatant fabrication or lying, and if that was the case then the number would be pretty small? There's going to be a few bad apples or frauds everywhere. Seems like a click bait trying to make something more than it is. The rest of the article is sensationalist b.s. on the typical hot topics (imgs, wait times, unmatched blah blah) that doesn't directly have much to do with the motivations of people who for some unspecified reasons had discrepancies in their applications to one specific speciality. Now if they actually released further findings or presented some more concrete information about the misrepresentations, then that would make it a worthwhile article. As it stands in its current state, its pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLengr Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Given how many other people were added to my research papers in residency, I'm surprised anyone had to fake anything. Everytime I turned around my supervising staff had thrown another name on it. Names get added on to publications like it's going out of style. The longer time you spend in the academic world, the more you realize 90% of it is BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oshaku Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Given how many other people were added to my research papers in residency, I'm surprised anyone had to fake anything. Everytime I turned around my supervising staff had thrown another name on it. Names get added on to publications like it's going out of style. The longer time you spend in the academic world, the more you realize 90% of it is BS. Haha well, there's no small amount of corruption in academia for sure, but I don't think it's as high as 90% What I mean to say is there is still some integrity, but just not to the level of purity that most people believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amichel Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Given how many other people were added to my research papers in residency, I'm surprised anyone had to fake anything. Everytime I turned around my supervising staff had thrown another name on it. Names get added on to publications like it's going out of style. The longer time you spend in the academic world, the more you realize 90% of it is BS. See everyone keeps saying that and yet I can't get anyone to let me help with a project. Sorry, having a "I'll never get any research and I'll probably have terrible reference letters and I'll probably go unmatched forever" kind of day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 See everyone keeps saying that and yet I can't get anyone to let me help with a project. Sorry, having a "I'll never get any research and I'll probably have terrible reference letters and I'll probably go unmatched forever" kind of day. they don't want to help you with the project......they just want their name on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amichel Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 they don't want to help you with the project......they just want their name on it. What? All I meant is that people make it seem like it's easy to find research projects but I've had a lot of trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleDaisy Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Hey good luck amichel I think that it is easier for med students than for undergrad science students for research opportunities. I know a few science undergrad who have a lot of troubles finding research projects. For faking publications, I think that faking is a strong word. I believe that some candidates might over-exaggerate their contribution to the publication (and it happens quite often in life, not just in med) . They are not inventing a publication out of nowhere I read through the article, it says that they are giving more places to IMGs and CMGS trained outside of North America ??? I know that I might be biased, but the government should prioritize the CMGs for residency spots. I mean that one CMG's medical educations costs around 100,000 for taxpayers and we don`t go through 4-5 years of medical school to have no residency spot Probably you are aiming for research in competitive specialty? I have friends who find easily research projects in Internal, Psych and even Pediatrics and Obs-Gyn! Just my random thoughts What? All I meant is that people make it seem like it's easy to find research projects but I've had a lot of trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amichel Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Hey good luck amichel I think that it is easier for med students than for undergrad science students for research opportunities. I know a few science undergrad who have a lot of troubles finding research projects. For faking publications, I think that faking is a strong word. I believe that some candidates might over-exaggerate their contribution to the publication (and it happens quite often in life, not just in med) . They are not inventing a publication out of nowhere I read through the article, it says that they are giving more places to IMGs and CMGS trained outside of North America ??? I know that I might be biased, but the government should prioritize the CMGs for residency spots. I mean that one CMG's medical educations costs around 100,000 for taxpayers and we don`t go through 4-5 years of medical school to have no residency spot Probably you are aiming for research in competitive specialty? I have friends who find easily research projects in Internal, Psych and even Pediatrics and Obs-Gyn! Just my random thoughts No, not really. I just don't know anyone and my cold-calls (emails really) go completely unanswered, mostly. It's alright though, I think I may have a humanities in medicine/history of medicine project in the works that will likely result in at least a poster presentation. You can enter poster presentations in Carms right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.