Unverifiable publications in otolaryngology residency applications

Mistakes, Misrepresentation, and Misunderstanding on Applications to a Canadian Diagnostic Radiology Residency Program

Purpose: Determine the educational background, research publications/presentations experience, and rates of research publication and presentation inaccuracies in applications to a Canadian diagnostic imaging residency program. Method: The education and publication/presentation sections of the Canadian Resident Matching Service form for all applicants to the University of Saskatchewan diagnostic imaging residency program from 2019-20 and 2020-21 were reviewed. Number of advanced degrees (Master's/PhDs), publications, and presentations were recorded. Accuracy of publications listed was confirmed via PubMed-MEDLINE, journal's website, or internet searching. Accuracy of presentations was confirmed via society and residency program websites. Inaccuracies of non-authorship, incorrect authorship order/status (self-promotion or demotion), and nonexistence of article/presentation from a verifiable source were recorded. Result: There were a total of 106 applicants. Thirty (28%) had advanced degrees. There were 230 publications from 61 applicants with inaccuracies in only 5 (2%) of the publications (2 self-promotion, 3 self-demotion). For the 77 publications listed as pending, 25 (31%) were published within 6 months of applications deadlines with 1 non-authorship, 1 self-promotion, and 1 self-demotion. For scientific presentations, there were 467 listed presentations by 91 applicants. Two hundred and twenty-one presentations were from verifiable sources with inaccuracies in 28 (13%) of presentations (9 self-promotion, 9 self-demotion, 1 non-authorship, and 9 non-existence). Conclusion: Despite some uncertainty with scientific articles reported as pending and scientific presentations, radiology residency applicants are accurately representing their published articles with a negligible number of misrepresentations. Canadian radiology residency programs should regard the publication profiles of the applicants with a high level of confidence.

Trust but Verify: Misrepresentation of Publication Records Among Child Neurology Residency Applicants

INTRODUCTION

Numerous authors have reported that misrepresentation of publication records among residency applicants is not uncommon. We sought to determine the percentage of child neurology residency applicants who falsify information about publications in the documents submitted to the Electronic Residency Application Service.

METHODS

The records of applicants to our residency program between 2014 and 2020 (898 individuals) were analyzed. Publications were verified by searching online databases and with a research librarian's assistance. Searches were conducted using all available information-author name, article title, and journal name-alone or in combination. Articles in inaccessible publications were disregarded. Misrepresentation was recorded when one the following was identified: listing a nonexistent article, promoting the applicant's name on the authors' list, misattributing authorship, and listing a publication as "in-press" yet never published.

RESULTS

From the 7 residency match cycles reviewed, 514 applicants reported having had authored at least 1 publication. Of those, 47 (9.14%) listed 75 unquestionably misrepresented publications. In 33 instances, the paper did not exist, with some applicants going as far as submitting a nonexistent PubMed Identifier; in 21 instances, the author's name was promoted on the authors' list; in 15 instances, the applicant was not an author; and in 6 instances, the author reported the publication as "in-press," but the work has never been published.

CONCLUSION

As happens in other specialties, child neurology residency applicants sometimes submit fraudulent information about their publications. Program directors need to be aware of this possibility and carefully review the information provided by applicants.

Are Standardized Letters of Recommendation in Residency Applications Correlated With Objective Data?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR), commonly used for medical students applying to otolaryngology residency, correlates with objective data in the application.

BACKGROUND

Standardized letters of recommendation using Likert-type scales for different attributes are commonly used by evaluators because of their high interrater reliability and efficiency in preparation and interpretation. Given that these are subjectively scored, it is unknown how well these correlate with objective data.

METHODS

Applications to the University of Cincinnati otolaryngology residency were evaluated in the academic cycle of 2017-2018. Standardized letters of recommendation were scored to determine whether certain attributes were correlated with objective data (United States Medical Licensing Examination [USMLE] scores and number of presentations/publications) provided in their application. Spearman correlations were used to evaluate the strength of the relationship between the subjective score in certain attributes with objective data.

RESULTS

There were 217 applications to the University of Cincinnati that contained SLORs. Of these applications, 474 standardized letters were scored in categories of medical knowledge, research, and commitment to academic medicine. Total publications and presentations were weakly correlated with commitment to academic medicine (0.35, P < .0001, n = 369) and with research (0.44, P < .0001, n = 355). Medical knowledge was weakly correlated with Step 1 scores (0.20, P < .0001) and Step 2 scores (0.18, P = .0002).

CONCLUSIONS

Subjective research and commitment to academic medicine rating scores were weakly correlated with greater academic productivity. Similarly, medical knowledge scores were weakly correlated with Step 1/2 scores. Further research may be needed to assess how to interpret SLOR scores in addition to the information available in an otolaryngology application.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Nationwide study of publication misrepresentation in applicants to residency

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to assess the prevalence of research publication misrepresentation amongst Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) applicants to a single surgical subspecialty residency as a potential means of assessing professional behaviour.

METHODS

The authors reviewed CaRMS application forms to Canadian otolaryngology residency programmes over a 3-year period (2006-2008) for peer-reviewed publications reported as 'published', 'accepted' and 'in press'. Citations were verified by searching PubMed, Google Scholar and electronic journals. Misrepresentation was defined as any of: (i) falsely claimed authorship of an existing article; (ii) claimed authorship of a non-existing article, and (iii) improper ordering of authorship. Outcomes included descriptive statistics, as well as sub-analyses pertaining to age, gender, affiliated medical school and academic degree, and number of publications per applicant.

RESULTS

A total of 427 peer-reviewed publications were reported by 124 of 182 applicants (68% of applicants reported at least one publication). Of the 385 verifiable publications, 47 (12% of articles) were misrepresented by 29 applicants (23% of applicants claiming publication) self-reporting at least one publication. Age, gender, location of medical training, prior academic degree and number of citations per applicant did not relate to likelihood of misrepresentation (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study documents the nationwide prevalence of publication misrepresentation amongst applicants to Canadian otolaryngology residency programmes. The high rate of misrepresentation aligns with data reported in the literature and highlights the need to institute measures to dissuade graduates from this form of unprofessional behaviour.