TomJeff

Very good. But there is a difference between this and a case of someone listing a non-existent paper listed with page numbers in a specific journal volume. In one instance placing his name instead of someone else. Doing so in several distinct versions of his CV, for many years after the presumably publication dates of those manuscripts .

Let's assume that I'm a retired Professor who hates watching his department, and more broadly the US academia, in decline; or perhaps I'm an upset former graduate student with some personal motives; or maybe I'm a random truck driver who likes to read scientific literature for fun (and hates when he can't find a manuscript to which someone refers in his CV). Which of these three options would make false details in the CV of a Professor more or less acceptable? Which of these would make it more likely that those false details were placed there by mistake? Which of these would bring those non-existent manuscripts into existence?

I think that we all wish this was always the case.

Sure, we can make it very simple. It can be reduced into these questions: 1) Do you find it acceptable that a Professor uses false information in his CV, used in his jobs and grants applications? 2) How likely you think it is for someone to add by mistake references to non-existent manuscripts in his CV, and doing that for years? 2) Regarding the claims raised in the original post: Did you find a full length copy of one of those discussed manuscripts that were presumably published by that professor?

...and no Sigaba, I don't pretend to know everything. However, I do find the claim raised by WildeThing (as if the inclusion of "inaccurate details" in a Professor CV should not necessarily have significant weight in a hiring decision) as disturbing. They should have great weight for at least one big reason : for being false (and I'm sorry. I have never heard of anyone listing in a CV non-existent manuscripts by mistake). I also find it disturbing that while you are criticizing me for posting my comment here without doing much prior reading, you yourself gave judgment about the original post and the article to which it is referring without even properly reading that article. To quote from Ibn Al-Haytham reply to you after he provided you with a distinct access key to that article (while apparently it had limited access): "After finding either one of the above papers (full length manuscript, please), you can move to your next challenge of figuring what motivates me. If you really care, please do proper fact checking. Yesterday I gave you a unique access code for the manuscript, and I know that your engagement was minimal (e.g., you didn’t press any of the links provided, directing to relevant materials)." ...you see, I did read the above discussion.

No Sigaba, I do understand you very well. You wrote: "Unless you've spend several thousand hours lurking here and reading posts by members on similar topics, and can demonstrate having done so by pasting links to specific comments, your opinion is unlikely to carry much weight at this time" That is, you clearly talked about the apparent overall "seniority" in thegradcafe forum (beyond this specific discussion). Besides, what kind of inferences can you make from the time point in which I signed after reading the content of the above post and the following discussion, which I specifically find as important and disturbing, regarding the amount of time I spent reading the above content (or any other content here)?

Sigaba, that make sense. Claims should be weighted by the seniority (in an internet forum) of the person making those claim, regardless of what those claims are. E.g., if a Professor writes something in his CV, it must be true (even when direct evidence provided show the opposite). After all, he is a Professor. Bravo to you for the above statement.

The hiring of a Professor is for sure done based on many factors. One of those factors should be the candidate having highest levels of integrity. I suspect that someone who uses even "small lies" in formal documents ( such as job and grant applications) doesn't meet those requirements. In fact, I find it alarming that not all readers in this forum find such a behavior, exhibited by a Professor, as unacceptable.