Update on Misrepresentation of Research Publications Among Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Applicants

Abstract

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.

An Evaluation of Self-Reported Publications in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Applications

“…A follow-up study reported only 13 of 1100 (1.18%) papers as inaccurate during the 2016-2017 application cycle, which is much closer to the rate of inaccuracy found in our study. 10 The slight increase in our inaccuracy rate could be because the SF Match does not require a PMID field for each citation. Fellowship applicants may also demonstrate more diligence when reporting their research experience.…”

Low Misrepresentation Rates of Scholarly Work in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Residency Applications

“…An increasingly qualified applicant pool poses a difficult challenge for faculty involved in screening/selecting applicants [7]. As a result, scholarly activity is now routinely used as an important stratification metric since this is a proxy of an applicant's diligence at task completion, work ethic, and academic potential during residency [6,7].…”

“…Published articles/abstracts were categorized by type. Misrepresentation was defined in accordance with criteria established by Meeks et al with minor modifications as follows: (1) non-authorship of a published article in which authorship was claimed, (2) claimed authorship of non-existent/unverifiable article, (3) self-promotion to a higher authorship status within a published article, and (4) non-peer reviewed article/abstract reported as peer-reviewed [7]. The number of podium and poster presentations were recorded for applicants but were not included in misrepresentation analyses.…”

“…Unlike standard metrics employed in tests, there is no standardized approach to evaluate/verify applicant research work. Despite the introduction of a categorized reporting system implemented under the Electronic Residency Application System (ERAS), the lack of a validation tool provides applicants with latitude to misrepresent scholarly accolades given that applicants may feel compelled to overstate their accomplishments to stand out as more proficient candidates [4,7]. Although misrepresentation of research work has been demonstrated across multiple specialties, it has not been investigated in otolaryngology residency applications recently [4,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13].…”

The Outcomes of “Submitted” Publications From Applicants to Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Programs: A Retrospective Review of 1303 Residency Applications

“… 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Rates of misrepresentation in orthopaedics have significantly decreased over the last 20 years, likely due to the advent of including PubMed identification numbers in the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) standardized residency application. 6 , 10 , 12 While previous studies have examined publication misrepresentation among verified publications, no study to date has examined the outcomes of publications listed as “submitted” at the time of application to orthopaedic surgery residency. These “Submitted” publications have no associated PubMed identification, which prevents their outcomes from being verified during the residency application process.…”