The Experts below are selected from a list of 32271 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Michael Devitt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Psychological Conception, Psychological Reality: A Response to Longworth and
2015Co-Authors: Michael DevittAbstract:My book, Ignorance of Language (2006a), challenges the received Chom-skian “psychological conception ” of grammars and proposes a “linguistic conception ” according to which a grammar is a theory of a representation-al system. My response to Guy Longworth rejects his claim in “Ignorance of Linguistics ” (2009) that there is “mutual determination ” between linguistic and psychological facts with the result that both of these conceptions are true. Peter Slezak’s “Linguistic Explanation and ‘Psychological Reality’” (2009) is full of fl agrant Misrepresentations of my discussion of the psycho-logical conception and of the psychological reality of linguistic principles and rules. My response summarizes the worst of these Misrepresentations
-
Psychological Conception, Psychological Reality: A Response to Longworth and Slezak
Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 2009Co-Authors: Michael DevittAbstract:My book, Ignorance of Language (2006a), challenges the received Chomskian "psychological conception" of grammars and proposes a "linguistic conception" according to which a grammar is a theory of a representational system. My response to Guy Longworth rejects his claim in "Ignorance of Linguistics" (2009) that there is "mutual determination" between linguistic and psychological facts with the result that both of these conceptions are true. Peter Slezak's "Linguistic Explanation and 'Psychological Reality"' (2009) is full of flagrant Misrepresentations of my discussion of the psychological conception and of the psychological reality of linguistic principles and rules. My response summarizes the worst of these Misrepresentations.
Lynn A. Crosby - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Update on Misrepresentation of Research Publications Among Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Applicants
The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 2018Co-Authors: Brett D. Meeks, Eric M. Kiskaddon, Michael G. Burton, Andrew W. Froehle, Lynn A. Crosby, Richard T. LaughlinAbstract:BACKGROUND Our 2 previous studies (1999, 2007) examining Misrepresentation of research publications among orthopaedic residency applicants revealed rates of Misrepresentation of 18.0% and 20.6%, respectively. As the residency selection process has become more competitive, the number of applicants who list publications has increased. The purpose of this study was to determine current rates of research Misrepresentation by orthopaedic surgery applicants. METHODS We reviewed the publication listings and research section of the Common Application Form from the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) for all applicants applying to 1 orthopaedic residency program. The PubMed-MEDLINE database was principally used to search for citations. The PubMed Identifier (PMID) number was used; if no PMID number was listed, a combination of authors or the title of the work was used. If the citations were not found through PubMed, a previously developed algorithm was followed to determine Misrepresentation. Misrepresentation was defined as (1) nonauthorship of a published article in which authorship was claimed, (2) claimed authorship of a nonexistent article, or (3) self-promotion to a higher authorship status within a published article. RESULTS Five hundred and seventy-three applicants applied to our institution for residency in 2016 to 2017: 250 (43.6%) of 573 applicants did not list a publication, whereas 323 (56.4%) of 573 applicants listed ≥1 publication. We found 13 cases of Misrepresentation among a total of 1,100 citations (1.18% in 2017 versus 18.0% in 1999 and 20.6% in 2007, p < 0.001). Ten cases of Misrepresentation were self-promotion to a higher authorship status. There were 2 cases of claimed authorship of an article that could not be found. Only 1 applicant misrepresented more than once. CONCLUSIONS Based on our findings, orthopaedic surgery residency applicants are accurately representing their publication information. The incorporation of the PMID number on the ERAS application has streamlined the process for finding publications, and has possibly encouraged veracity on residency applications. Faculty involved in the resident selection process should be aware of the significant decline in the rate of Misrepresentation by medical students applying for orthopaedic surgery residency versus the rate in our prior studies.
-
Misrepresentation of research criteria by orthopaedic residency applicants.
The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 1999Co-Authors: J. Alexandra Dale, Colleen M. Schmitt, Lynn A. CrosbyAbstract:Background: Previous studies have shown that applicants for postgraduate training may misrepresent research citations. We evaluated the research citations that were identified in a review of the Publications and Work and Research sections from the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) data for all applicants to our orthopaedic residency program for the 1998 to 1999 academic year. Methods: The citations were searched for on Medline. We initially used the name of the first author, then the name of the applicant, the name of the journal, the volume number, the issue number, and the page numbers. When a journal was not listed in Medline, an interlibrary search was instituted with use of the same format. When no match was made for any category, the citation was defined as misrepresented. Point estimates are reported as percentages. Results: Publications were listed on sixty-four (30.0 percent) of 213 applications. One hundred and thirty-eight publications were cited; there were fifteen citations (10.9 percent) to book chapters, twenty-six (18.8 percent) to journals not listed in Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory, and twenty-one (15.2 percent) to articles listed as in press, in print, or submitted for publication. Seventy-six articles that had been cited as appearing in journals listed in Ulrich's Directory were checked and verified. Fourteen (18 percent) of these seventy-six publications were misrepresented. Misrepresentations included citations of nonexistent articles in actual journals and nonauthorship of existing articles. Conclusions: We concluded that publications listed on postgraduate applications should be scrutinized carefully. Copies of cited publications should be required by residency programs before applications are considered complete. The importance of professionalism needs to be emphasized in the curricula of medical schools. Residency training programs should develop guidelines regarding Misrepresentation.
K.j. Euske - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Strategic Misrepresentation in Budgeting
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1991Co-Authors: L.r. Jones, K.j. EuskeAbstract:This article provides a definition of the term "strategic Misrepresentation" and applies it to public budgeting. Strategic Misrepresentation is the planned, systematic distortion or misstatement of fact-lying-in response to incentives in the budget process. Examples of strategic Misrepresentation in budgeting illustrate that it is a contingent strategy responsive to a system of rewards in a highly competitive game where resource constraints are present. Not all budget advocacy requires or involves Misrepresentation nor is all budgetary strategy intended to misrepresent. Strategic Misrepresentation is a predictable response to the incentive structure of the budgetary game; it is used because it works under some circumstances. It is used both by budget advocates and controllers and at times by both sides of the left-right political spectrum. The study identifies thirteen budget-process factors that appear to stimulate strategic Misrepresentation in budgeting and provides examples to demonstrate under which conditions the budget-process factors result in strategic Misrepresentation. The study concludes that no amount of moral handwringing over the evils of strategic Misrepresentation is likely to lessen the practice. Rather, the system of incentives that propels strategic Misrepresentation requires analysis and reform if the behavior is to be discouraged.
Richard T. Laughlin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Update on Misrepresentation of Research Publications Among Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Applicants
The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 2018Co-Authors: Brett D. Meeks, Eric M. Kiskaddon, Michael G. Burton, Andrew W. Froehle, Lynn A. Crosby, Richard T. LaughlinAbstract:BACKGROUND Our 2 previous studies (1999, 2007) examining Misrepresentation of research publications among orthopaedic residency applicants revealed rates of Misrepresentation of 18.0% and 20.6%, respectively. As the residency selection process has become more competitive, the number of applicants who list publications has increased. The purpose of this study was to determine current rates of research Misrepresentation by orthopaedic surgery applicants. METHODS We reviewed the publication listings and research section of the Common Application Form from the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) for all applicants applying to 1 orthopaedic residency program. The PubMed-MEDLINE database was principally used to search for citations. The PubMed Identifier (PMID) number was used; if no PMID number was listed, a combination of authors or the title of the work was used. If the citations were not found through PubMed, a previously developed algorithm was followed to determine Misrepresentation. Misrepresentation was defined as (1) nonauthorship of a published article in which authorship was claimed, (2) claimed authorship of a nonexistent article, or (3) self-promotion to a higher authorship status within a published article. RESULTS Five hundred and seventy-three applicants applied to our institution for residency in 2016 to 2017: 250 (43.6%) of 573 applicants did not list a publication, whereas 323 (56.4%) of 573 applicants listed ≥1 publication. We found 13 cases of Misrepresentation among a total of 1,100 citations (1.18% in 2017 versus 18.0% in 1999 and 20.6% in 2007, p < 0.001). Ten cases of Misrepresentation were self-promotion to a higher authorship status. There were 2 cases of claimed authorship of an article that could not be found. Only 1 applicant misrepresented more than once. CONCLUSIONS Based on our findings, orthopaedic surgery residency applicants are accurately representing their publication information. The incorporation of the PMID number on the ERAS application has streamlined the process for finding publications, and has possibly encouraged veracity on residency applications. Faculty involved in the resident selection process should be aware of the significant decline in the rate of Misrepresentation by medical students applying for orthopaedic surgery residency versus the rate in our prior studies.
P. Boffetta - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Errors in systematic reviews: an example of computed tomography screening for lung cancer
European Journal of Cancer Prevention, 2014Co-Authors: R. Yip, F. Islami, S. Zhao, M. Tao, D. F. Yankelevitz, P. BoffettaAbstract:Systematic reviews are utilized in evidence-based medicine and are increasingly being used to help guide standards, guidelines, and clinical practice. The National Lung Screening Trial results prompted such a review of lung cancer screening literature. The review was endorsed by five major medical societies. We aimed at assessing its accuracy. Two independent groups of two reviewers reviewed the systematic review, including its source literature. Errors were placed into three major categories and tabulated: (i) selection of studies, (ii) Misrepresentation of published reports, and (iii) errors in calculation and rounding. A total of 151 errors were found. There were 13 errors in selection of studies, 124 errors due to Misrepresentation of published reports, and 14 errors in calculations and rounding. The extent of these errors raises concern about the credibility of the conclusions of the recent lung cancer screening systematic review. A process that allows for a thorough checking of data included in systematic reviews should be established.
