Misrepresentation by Ophthalmology Residency Applicants

Abstract

To determine the percentage of publication misrepresentation among applicants to an ophthalmology residency, to compare that percentage with published percentages from other specialties, and to compare the number of US-trained applicants vs non-US-trained applicants found to misrepresent published articles. Methods: Published articles in peer-reviewed journals listed on residency applications to the Jones Eye Institute from October 10, 2000, to December 1, 2004, were searched, excluding applications that were unavailable or were from current residents and faculty. The type of misrepresentation of published articles and the country of medical school training were recorded. Compared were US-trained applicants vs non-US-trained applicants to determine which group was more likely to list published articles and which group was more likely to have a misrepresented published article. Results: Eight hundred twenty-one of 852 applications (96.4%) were reviewed. Five hundred fifty applicants (67.0%) were from US medical schools, and 271 applicants (33.0%) were from non-US medical schools. Two hundred one applicants (24.5%) listed peer-reviewed published articles. Misrepresentation of published articles was found in 15 applicants (5 US trained and 10 non-US trained). The mean percentage of applicants with misrepresentation per applicant pool was 1.9%, while the mean percentage per applicants listing published articles was 8.1%. The most common misrepresentation found was self-promotion on the author list (50.0%), followed by omission of other authors (25.0%), nonexistent articles (12.5%), and nonauthorship (12.5%). Foreign medical graduates were more likely to list published articles (P = .008) and to have a misrepresented published article (P =.01). Conclusions: Ophthalmology has one of the lowest reported percentages of applicant publication misrepresentation in the literature. Foreign medical graduates were more likely to list published articles and to misrepresent published articles. Self-promotion on the author list was the most common type of misrepresentation found. Residency program directors should request copies of published articles from interviewing applicants.

Nationwide study of publication misrepresentation in applicants to residency

“…Previous studies of applicants to psychiatry, general surgery, ophthalmology and otolaryngology residency programmes showed significantly higher rates of misrepresentation in IMGs . However, the inverse was true in the present study.…”

“…The resulting selection bias may perhaps explain the lower reported rates of publication misrepresentation. Likewise, other studies reporting fewer misrepresentations did not account for ‘in‐press’ articles that had not been published despite allowing for a reasonable delay in time to publication, and one study that did not consider unverifiable publications as misrepresentations still included them in its analysis …”

Prevalence and Types of Misrepresentation of Publication Record by Pathology Residency Applicants

“…Misrepresentation was defined similarly to Wiggins' study on applicants to an ophthalmology residency program, and includes the following: (1) reporting authorship of an article when not listed as an author, (2) listing an article that does not exist in the literature, (3) self-promoting the applicant's name on the author list, (4) omitting other authors from the author list, and (5) reporting the article to be published in a more prestigious journal (in our case, erroneously listing a source as peer reviewed). 10 An example of self-promotion on the author list would be an applicant listing his or her name as first or second on the author list, when in fact the name appears third or later. If an applicant listed multiple publications and at least 1 misrepresentation was found, this was regarded as 1 misrepresentation, as the study is based on the number of applicants with misrepresentations.…”

“…1,[5][6][7][8][9][10] This would be a possibility due to the inherent disadvantage of applying to a US residency position as an FMG, and perhaps added pressure to appear more competitive. 5 Furthermore, foreign journals are not as readily accessed by Western data searches.…”

“…Seven studies comparing publication misrepresentation rates among FMGs and US medical graduates reported conflicting findings, with 4 studies showing statistically higher rates of misrepresentation among FMGs and 3 showing no difference. [1][2][3][4]7,10 A study regarding misrepresentation by residency applicants to a pathology program has not been published. As pathology is a research-oriented residency, one may expect higher rates of reported publications among applicants.…”