Misrepresentation of Publications by Radiology Residency Applicants: Is It Really a Problem?

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.

The Presence of Ghost Publications Among Canadian Plastic Surgery Residency Applicants: How Honest Are Canadians?

Background:

Physicians with history of unprofessional behaviour during their medical training are shown to be 3 times more likely to have board disciplinary action later in their career. One realm in which unprofessional behaviour takes place is the phenomenon of unverifiable publications or “ghost publications.” To that end, this study aims to assess the rate of ghost publications among a recent cohort of Canadian Plastic Surgery residency applicants to determine if this phenomenon is geographic in nature.

Methods:

The current study was a retrospective, cross-sectional observational study; a review of all residency applications submitted to a single Canadian Plastic Surgery residency program from 2015 to 2018 was performed and all their listed publications were verified for accuracy. The review was conducted by a third party librarian and a research coordinator blinded to the authors identifying information. “Ghost publication” was defined as any publication listed as “published,” “accepted,” or “in-press” that did not exist in the literature.

Results:

A total of 196 applications of 186 applicants were submitted over the span of 4 years. A total of 362 publications listed as peer-reviewed articles, belonging to 114 applications were extracted and reviewed. Among the 362 publications listed as peer-reviewed articles, 2 could not be found in the literature (0.55%). Additionally, 42 citations were found with 48 minor differences than what was cited.

Conclusions:

The rate of ghost publications among recent applicants to a Plastic Surgery residency program is low (less than 1%). Future studies should investigate methods to further improve and instill the value of professionalism in our future plastic surgery trainees.

Update on Misrepresentation of Research Publications Among Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Applicants

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.

Prevalence of Research Publication Misrepresentation Among Urology Residency Applicants and Its Effect on Match Success

OBJECTIVE

To report the prevalence of research misrepresentation among urology residency applicants and assess its effect on match success.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All applications to the Columbia University urology residency program for the 2014-2015 match cycle were reviewed. "In-press," "accepted," and "submitted" manuscripts were verified using PubMed, Google Scholar, and journal websites. Misrepresentation for "in-press" and "accepted" manuscripts was defined as: (1) nonexistent manuscript, (2) nonauthorship of existent manuscript, (3) self-promotion to a higher author rank, and/or (4) existent manuscript in a nonpeer-reviewed publication. Logistic regression was performed to identify associated factors of misrepresentation and of match success.

RESULTS

Of 257 applicants, 204 (79.4%) reported 1098 total manuscripts and 142 (55.3%) reported 371 unpublished manuscripts. About 5% (13 of 257) of applicants misrepresented 1 or more publications: 10 listed nonexistent manuscripts, 1 listed a publication for which he/she was listed a lower author rank than reported, 1 listed an accepted manuscript in a nonpeer-reviewed publication and for which he/she was not listed as an author, and 1 listed 4 in-press manuscripts in a nonpeer-reviewed publication. Only 55.8% (139 of 249) of "submitted" manuscripts were published within 12 months, with 41% (51 of 139) published in a journal of a lower impact factor than the reported journal of submission. Higher number of unpublished manuscripts was associated with misrepresentation. Higher Step 1 score, number of away sub-internships, and publication ratio were associated with match success.

CONCLUSION

Research misrepresentation is a persistent issue in urology residency applications. However, misrepresentation in this cohort did not confer a significant advantage in match success.