0
Socioeconomics and Health Services |

Misrepresentation by Ophthalmology Residency Applicants FREE

Michael N. Wiggins, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Section Editor: Paul P. Lee, MD
Author Affiliation: Jones Eye Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

More Author Information
Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128(7):906-910. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.123.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objectives  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.

In 1995, Sekas and Hutson1 reported that 30.2% of physicians listing published articles on their applications to a gastroenterology fellowship had some form of misrepresentation of their publications. Since then, 17 other studies218 of applicants to residency and fellowship programs in other medical specialties have found misrepresentation in 1.8% to 100.0% of applicants listing publications and in 0.8% to 16.1% of the total number of applicants.19 The wide range of percentages was addressed in a study of applicants to internal medicine residency by Hebert et al,11 who concluded that previous studies had overestimated the scope of the problem by an inadequate publication strategy.

Speculative causes of applicant misrepresentation have included the desire to appear more competitive, the low likelihood of detection, the justification that everyone likely enhances his or her curriculum vitae, the competitiveness of the field, psychiatric problems, and mistakes owing to carelessness or misunderstandings.1,10,11,17 Six studies1,5,7,10,15,17 compared rates of publication misrepresentation among foreign medical graduates (FMGs) vs US medical graduates. Three of 6 found statistically higher rates of misrepresentation among FMGs, while the other 3 did not. Among the FMGs, Caplan et al10 cited concern about the competitive disadvantage of FMGs and about the opportunity of training and practicing in the United States as a possible reason for these findings.

A review of the current literature found no previous study of misrepresentation by residency applicants to ophthalmology.19 Therefore, the objectives of this study were 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.

After obtaining approval from the institutional review board at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, applications were examined from the San Francisco Match Centralized Application Service for ophthalmology residency positions received by the Jones Eye Institute at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences from October 10, 2000, to December 1, 2004. Applications that were unavailable for review and applications from current residents and faculty were excluded from this study. Each application was reviewed to determine if published peer-reviewed articles were listed and to determine the applicant's country of medical school training. Abstracts, book chapters, and articles listed as submitted, in press, or accepted for publication were excluded. Articles published in journals that were inaccessible for verification were also excluded.

Listed articles were searched based on the extensive strategy used by Hebert et al11 to study applicants to internal medicine residency. The following sources were searched until the article was located: PubMed, Web of Science, Journal Citation Reports, Google Scholar, Article First, Academic Search Elite, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Education Resource Information Center, SciFinder Scholar, and a manual review of the journal cited. Searches used all available information (ie, author names, article title, and journal citation information) in combinations and separately. Other issues of the cited journal were searched to account for possible typographic errors in the reference. It was concluded that the article did not exist in the literature if it was not located after using these aforementioned sources.

The type of misrepresentation was recorded when found. Misrepresentation was defined in a manner similar to that by Caplan et al10 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.

During the study, it was discovered that some applicants reported abstracts as published articles. Although many applicants specified the difference, some made no distinction, allowing the appearance of more published articles. It was unclear if this should be considered misrepresentation. In their study of emergency residency applicants, Roellig and Katz3 considered this fraudulent. However, 17 other studies1,2,418 of residency or fellowship applicant misrepresentation did not. An ethics committee consisting of 12 academic ophthalmologists at the Jones Eye Institute was assembled to address this question. Although not unanimous, the majority opinion was that the wording on the San Francisco Match Centralized Application Service form asked for publications and did not specify that abstracts should be distinguished from articles. Because both can be considered publications, applicants with unspecified abstracts should not be considered to have misrepresented their published articles. Based on the recommendation of the ethics committee, this was excluded from the study definition of misrepresentation.

Last, the numbers of US medical graduates and FMGs were compared to determine if one group was more likely to list published articles and to determine if one group was more likely to have a misrepresented article. Comparisons were made using 2-tailed Fisher exact test. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Eight hundred fifty-two candidates applied for 3 ophthalmology residency positions at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences from October 10, 2000, to December 1, 2004. Nine applicants were current residents or faculty and were excluded from review. In addition, 22 applicants were excluded from application year 2000. In that year, the applications received by residency program directors were in transition from paper to compact disk data. Although 124 applicants were listed on the compact disk, data were missing from 22 who had applied in paper format only. These applications were not retained by the department.

Eight hundred twenty-one applications (96.4%) were reviewed (Table 1). Among those, 550 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 published articles in peer-reviewed journals. Of those reporting published articles, 119 applicants (59.2%) were US trained, and 82 applicants (40.8%) were not. A comparison of US medical graduates vs FMGs reporting publications found that FMGs were more likely to list published articles on their application (P = .008). For 22 applicants, at least 1 article was excluded from review because of an inaccessible journal.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Number of Applications Reviewed and Number of Applicants Listing Published Articles

Over 5 years of study, misrepresentation of published articles was found in a mean of 3 applicants (range, 1-6) per year (Table 2). The mean percentage of applicants with misrepresentation per applicant pool was 1.9% (range, 0.6%-3.0%). The mean percentage per applicants listing published articles was 8.1% (range, 2.2%-15.0%).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Percentage of Applicants With Misrepresentation per Applicant Pool and per Applicants Listing Published Articles

Fifteen applicants over the 5-year period misrepresented published articles. Five were trained in the United States, and 10 were trained outside of the United States (Table 3). A comparison of the 2 groups found that FMGs were more likely to misrepresent published articles (P = .01). 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%). No examples of listing the article as published in a more prestigious journal were found.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Number of Applicants With Published Article Misrepresentation and Type of Misrepresentation

To date, this study is the first to examine publication misrepresentation among applicants to ophthalmology residency. Based on the number of applications reviewed, it is the largest study of residency or fellowship applicant misrepresentation in the current literature. It is also the first study to examine residency or fellowship applicants across 5 application years. Although no level of publication misrepresentation is desirable, 1.9% per applicant pool and 8.1% per applicants listing published articles are the lowest reported among all previous studies except for internal medicine and dermatology.118 The present study expands on the question in the literature of whether FMG applicants are more likely to have a misrepresented published article than their US counterparts by finding a significant difference between the 2 groups.

It is difficult to know with certainty if the misrepresentations found in this study were examples of carelessness, innocent misunderstandings, or a willful intent to bolster the applicant's competitiveness through deception. Two applicants listed published articles for which they were discovered not to be authors. One applicant claimed to be the first author, while the other applicant claimed to be the third among 4 authors. It is possible that these applicants may have participated in the projects at some level, creating an assumption of authorship. They may have originally been listed as an author but were removed in a resubmission to another journal, as one applicant listed an incorrect journal and month of publication. However, the other applicant correctly referenced the article and claimed first authorship. It is difficult to imagine that a first author could have unknowingly been eliminated and then looked up the citation to record it on the residency application without noticing the absence of his or her name. It is also concerning that neither nonauthor applicant was mentioned in the acknowledgment section of the published articles.

Two applicants listed published articles that could not be located by extensive searching. On their applications, each article was reported to be in a major journal indexed by the National Library of Medicine (Bethesda, Maryland). Because the authors and their article titles could not be located in these or any other accessible peer-reviewed publications, it is difficult to explain these misrepresentations as a misunderstanding or a typographic error.

Four applicants omitted author names from their listed publications, giving the appearance that fewer individuals were responsible for the work. One applicant listed 12 published articles and eliminated author names in 5 of them. Although these examples could be rationalized as carelessness, the applicants should have been aware of the correct number of authors when recording the reference information.

Half of the misrepresentations found were self-promotions on the author list. Similar to author name omissions, these errors could be owing to carelessness. If so, among 201 applicants who listed publications, it would be expected to find a roughly equal number of author list promotions and demotions. However, every case was a promotion of the applicant. Similarly, Caplan et al10 reported 7 instances of author self-promotion among 641 applicants to psychiatry residency. They found no case of author self-demotion. Furthermore, in all 8 cases of authorship promotion in the present study, the applicant self-promoted to first or second author, with second author being chosen slightly more often. If these acts were unintentional, it would be expected to find examples of self-promotion to third or fourth author, as many articles had multiple authors. However, no examples of lower promotion were found. Six of 8 applicants listed a single article with self-promotion, 1 applicant incorrectly claimed first authorship on 2 articles, and 1 applicant erroneously reported second authorship on 2 articles, suggesting a coincidence or a possible preference in the degree of self-promotion.

Medical licensure in the United States requires the completion of a US residency. Foreign medical graduates applying to US residencies may face a competitive disadvantage. The higher likelihood of FMGs to list publications than US-trained applicants reflects the need to strengthen their application. As already discussed, the greater pressure placed on FMGs to bolster their application to obtain a US residency may explain why significantly more FMG applicants misrepresented published articles.

There are limitations to this study. First, as a medium-sized residency program located in the South, candidates preferring to apply to programs of different size or location may not have applied to this institution. Therefore, these results may not generalize to all ophthalmology program applicant pools. Second, although this study found a lower percentage of applicant publication misrepresentation than almost all other similar investigations, comparisons must consider differences in the methods. For example, I used a more extensive search strategy than many previous studies.1,3,4,911,13 Also, 12 studies of 18 included articles in press but not published after a defined time frame,1,2,57,9,1215,17,18 and 5 studies considered articles in unlocated journals as examples of misrepresentation.1,5,6,9,11 I chose not to include these, as there are valid reasons why articles may be withdrawn before publication, and an unlocated journal may be inaccessible and not necessarily indicate fabrication. Therefore, the extent of the search protocol and the exclusion of articles in press or in unverifiable journals could explain why my study found a lower percentage of misrepresentation compared with others.

We should not be surprised to learn that willful misrepresentation occurs at some level, as the risks of detection are low and the rewards of a residency position are high. Residency program directors cannot be expected to verify all information presented by every applicant to their program. However, they should be aware that misrepresentation was found for every application year in this study and was as high as 11.1% to 15.0% among applicants listing publications in 2 of 5 study years. Small changes could help minimize these occurrences. Many have recommended that applicants invited to interviews should be asked to forward copies of their published articles for verification and interview facilitation. In addition, the San Francisco Centralized Application Service should consider rewording the residency application to require the differentiation of abstracts, articles in press, and published articles. Residency program directors who choose not to ask applicants to forward published articles should consider verifying publications listed by interviewing applicants, keeping in mind that author self-promotion and author omission are the most common forms of article misrepresentation. Differences in study methods aside, it is comforting to know that misrepresentation among applicants to our field falls at the lowest end of the reported spectrum. The results of this study suggest that ophthalmology continues to attract high-quality and ethical applicants.

Correspondence: Michael N. Wiggins, MD, Jones Eye Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 W Markham, Slot 523, Little Rock, AR 72205-7199 (wigginsmichael@uams.edu).

Submitted for Publication: August 19, 2009; final revision received September 8, 2009; accepted September 8, 2009.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported in part by unrestricted grants from Research to Prevent Blindness and by the Pat and Willard Walker Eye Research Center.

Sekas  GHutson  WR Misrepresentation of academic accomplishments by applicants for gastroenterology fellowships. Ann Intern Med 1995;123 (1) 38- 41
PubMed
Yang  GYSchoenwetter  MFWagner  TDDonohue  KAKuettel  MR Misrepresentation of publications among radiation oncology residency applicants. J Am Coll Radiol 2006;3 (4) 259- 264
PubMed
Roellig  MSKatz  ED Inaccuracies on applications for emergency medicine residency training. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11 (9) 992- 994
PubMed
Dale  JASchmitt  CMCrosby  LA Misrepresentation of research criteria by orthopaedic residency applicants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81 (12) 1679- 1681
PubMed
Gurudevan  SVMower  WR Misrepresentation of research publications among emergency medicine residency applicants. Ann Emerg Med 1996;27 (3) 327- 330
PubMed
Bilge  AShugerman  RPRobertson  WO Misrepresentation of authorship by applicants to pediatrics training programs. Acad Med 1998;73 (5) 532- 533
PubMed
Baker  DRJackson  VP Misrepresentation of publications by radiology residency applicants. Acad Radiol 2000;7 (9) 727- 729
PubMed
Konstantakos  EKLaughlin  RTMarkert  RJCrosby  LA Follow-up on misrepresentation of research activity by orthopaedic residency applicants: has anything changed? J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89 (9) 2084- 2088
PubMed
Glazer  JLHatzenbuehler  JRDexter  WWKuhn  CB Misrepresentation of research citations by applicants to a primary care sports medicine fellowship program in the United States. Clin J Sport Med 2008;18 (3) 279- 281
PubMed
Caplan  JPBorus  JFChang  GGreenberg  WE Poor intentions or poor attention: misrepresentation by applicants to psychiatry residency. Acad Psychiatry 2008;32 (3) 225- 229
PubMed
Hebert  RSSmith  CGWright  SM Minimal prevalence of authorship misrepresentation among internal medicine residency applicants: do previous estimates of “misrepresentation” represent insufficient case finding? Ann Intern Med 2003;138 (5) 390- 392
PubMed
Cohen-Gadol  AAKoch  CARaffel  CSpinner  RJ Confirmation of research publications reported by neurological surgery residency applicants. Surg Neurol 2003;60 (4) 280- 284
PubMed
Boyd  ASHook  MKing  LE  Jr An evaluation of the accuracy of residency applicants' curricula vitae: are the claims of publications erroneous? J Am Acad Dermatol 1996;35 (4) 606- 608
PubMed
Patel  MVPradhan  BBMeals  RA Misrepresentation of research publications among orthopedic surgery fellowship applicants: a comparison with documented misrepresentations in other fields. Spine (Phila Pa 1986) 2003;28 (7) 632- 636
PubMed
Panicek  DMSchwartz  LHDershaw  DDErcolani  MCCastellino  RA Misrepresentation of publications by applicants for radiology fellowships: is it a problem? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;170 (3) 577- 581
PubMed
Katz  EDShockley  LKass  L  et al.  Identifying inaccuracies on emergency medicine residency applications. BMC Med Educ August 16, 2005;5e30http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1201142/?tool=pubmed. Accessed April 19, 2010
Kuo  PCSchroeder  RAShah  AShah  JJacobs  DOPietrobon  R “Ghost” publications among applicants to a general surgery residency program. J Am Coll Surg 2008;207 (4) 485- 489
PubMed
Gussman  DBlechman  A Verification of publications, presentations and posters by applicants to a residency in obstetrics and gynecology J Reprod Med 2007;52 (4) 259- 261
PubMed
Wiggins  MN A meta-analysis of studies of publication misrepresentation by applicants to residency and fellowship programs. Acad Med

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Number of Applications Reviewed and Number of Applicants Listing Published Articles
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Percentage of Applicants With Misrepresentation per Applicant Pool and per Applicants Listing Published Articles
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Number of Applicants With Published Article Misrepresentation and Type of Misrepresentation

References

Sekas  GHutson  WR Misrepresentation of academic accomplishments by applicants for gastroenterology fellowships. Ann Intern Med 1995;123 (1) 38- 41
PubMed
Yang  GYSchoenwetter  MFWagner  TDDonohue  KAKuettel  MR Misrepresentation of publications among radiation oncology residency applicants. J Am Coll Radiol 2006;3 (4) 259- 264
PubMed
Roellig  MSKatz  ED Inaccuracies on applications for emergency medicine residency training. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11 (9) 992- 994
PubMed
Dale  JASchmitt  CMCrosby  LA Misrepresentation of research criteria by orthopaedic residency applicants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81 (12) 1679- 1681
PubMed
Gurudevan  SVMower  WR Misrepresentation of research publications among emergency medicine residency applicants. Ann Emerg Med 1996;27 (3) 327- 330
PubMed
Bilge  AShugerman  RPRobertson  WO Misrepresentation of authorship by applicants to pediatrics training programs. Acad Med 1998;73 (5) 532- 533
PubMed
Baker  DRJackson  VP Misrepresentation of publications by radiology residency applicants. Acad Radiol 2000;7 (9) 727- 729
PubMed
Konstantakos  EKLaughlin  RTMarkert  RJCrosby  LA Follow-up on misrepresentation of research activity by orthopaedic residency applicants: has anything changed? J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89 (9) 2084- 2088
PubMed
Glazer  JLHatzenbuehler  JRDexter  WWKuhn  CB Misrepresentation of research citations by applicants to a primary care sports medicine fellowship program in the United States. Clin J Sport Med 2008;18 (3) 279- 281
PubMed
Caplan  JPBorus  JFChang  GGreenberg  WE Poor intentions or poor attention: misrepresentation by applicants to psychiatry residency. Acad Psychiatry 2008;32 (3) 225- 229
PubMed
Hebert  RSSmith  CGWright  SM Minimal prevalence of authorship misrepresentation among internal medicine residency applicants: do previous estimates of “misrepresentation” represent insufficient case finding? Ann Intern Med 2003;138 (5) 390- 392
PubMed
Cohen-Gadol  AAKoch  CARaffel  CSpinner  RJ Confirmation of research publications reported by neurological surgery residency applicants. Surg Neurol 2003;60 (4) 280- 284
PubMed
Boyd  ASHook  MKing  LE  Jr An evaluation of the accuracy of residency applicants' curricula vitae: are the claims of publications erroneous? J Am Acad Dermatol 1996;35 (4) 606- 608
PubMed
Patel  MVPradhan  BBMeals  RA Misrepresentation of research publications among orthopedic surgery fellowship applicants: a comparison with documented misrepresentations in other fields. Spine (Phila Pa 1986) 2003;28 (7) 632- 636
PubMed
Panicek  DMSchwartz  LHDershaw  DDErcolani  MCCastellino  RA Misrepresentation of publications by applicants for radiology fellowships: is it a problem? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;170 (3) 577- 581
PubMed
Katz  EDShockley  LKass  L  et al.  Identifying inaccuracies on emergency medicine residency applications. BMC Med Educ August 16, 2005;5e30http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1201142/?tool=pubmed. Accessed April 19, 2010
Kuo  PCSchroeder  RAShah  AShah  JJacobs  DOPietrobon  R “Ghost” publications among applicants to a general surgery residency program. J Am Coll Surg 2008;207 (4) 485- 489
PubMed
Gussman  DBlechman  A Verification of publications, presentations and posters by applicants to a residency in obstetrics and gynecology J Reprod Med 2007;52 (4) 259- 261
PubMed
Wiggins  MN A meta-analysis of studies of publication misrepresentation by applicants to residency and fellowship programs. Acad Med

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
PubMed Articles