Rate of Unverifiable Publications Among Ophthalmology Residency Applicants Invited to Interview

Abstract

IMPORTANCE Unverifiable publications in applications for ophthalmology residencies could be a serious concern if they represent publication dishonesty. OBJECTIVE To determine the rate of unverifiable publications among applicants offered an interview. DESIGN Retrospective review of 322 ophthalmology residency applications for entering classes 2012 to 2017 at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.INTERVENTIONS Full-length publications reported in the applications were searched in PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and directly on the journal's website. Applications were deemed unverifiable if there was no record of the publication by any of these means or if substantial discrepancies existed, such as incorrect authorship, incorrect journal, or a meaningful discrepancy in title or length (full-length article vs abstract).MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Inability to locate publication with search, incorrect author position, applicant not listed as an author, article being an abstract and not a published paper, substantial title discrepancy suggesting an alternative project, and incorrect journal. RESULTSOf the 322 applicants offered interviews during the 6-year study period, 22 (6.8%) had 24 unverifiable publications. Two hundred thirty-nine of these applicants (74.2%) reported at least 1 qualifying publication; of this group, 22 (9.2%) had an unverifiable publication. The applications with unverifiable publications were evenly distributed across the years of the study (range, 2-6 per cycle; Pearson χ 2 5 = 3.65; P = .60). Two applicants had 2 unverifiable publications each. Two of the 22 applicants (9.1%) with unverifiable publications were graduates of medical schools outside the United States. Among the unverifiable publications, the most common reason was inability to locate the publication (13 [54%]). Additional issues included abstract rather than full-length publication (5 [20.8%]), incorrect author position (4 [16.7%]), applicant not listed as an author on the publication (1 [4.2%]), and substantial title discrepancy (1 [4.2%]). One listed publication had an incorrect author position and incorrect journal (1 [4.2%]).

Dishonesty and research misconduct within the medical profession

“…The authors checked the published journal articles and abstracts stated on candidate's urology, ophthalmology and neurosurgery training programme applications. The results were startling, revealing misrepresentation and sometimes complete fabrication of articles, with rates ranging from 5 to 45% [41][42][43]. It is of no surprise that commentary on these findings mentioned the competitiveness of these specialties as partial explanations for the transgressions, with similar findings from a Canadian study published in 2015 [44].…”

Factors Associated with Early Career Research Productivity after Ophthalmology Residency

“…The need to reevaluate the merits of pre-residency publications is bolstered further by a study among ophthalmology applicants that revealed that up to 9.2% of applicants had at least one unverifiable publication on their application. 14 Furthermore, a study among Canadians applying for residency in a single surgical subspecialty found that 23% of applicants claiming publications had at least one misrepresented publication. 15 Another important finding of this study is the demonstration of a relationship between research productivity and career pursuits.…”

What Should Faculty Advisors Know Before Advising Students Applying to Psychiatry Residency

“…Similarly, do not encourage your advisees to embellish an experience or add something to their CV that they did not do. There is a growing body of literature speaking to "phantom publications," with an observation that 6-9% of applicants had unverifiable publications listed on their CV [18,19].…”