Want to take quizzes and track your credits?
How common are unverifiable publications among ophthalmology residency applications?
In this cross-sectional study of 322 applicants invited to interview for the ophthalmology residency program at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine for entering classes 2012 to 2017, 7% had an unverifiable publication. Of students listing any full-length publications, 9% had at least 1 unverifiable scholarly work.
Unverifiable publications are not rare among ophthalmology residency applications; modifying the San Francisco Match application may help ensure that the most ethical ophthalmology residents are recruited.
Unverifiable publications in applications for ophthalmology residencies could be a serious concern if they represent publication dishonesty.
To determine the rate of unverifiable publications among applicants offered an interview.
Retrospective review of 322 ophthalmology residency applications for entering classes 2012 to 2017 at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.
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.
Of 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 χ25 = 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%]).
Conclusions and Relevance
Unverifiable publications among ophthalmology residency applicants is a persistent problem. Possible strategies to modify the review process include asking applicants to provide copies of their full-length works or the relevant PMCID (PubMed Central reference number) or DOI (digital object identifier) for their publications.
Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates
JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC
Accepted for Publication: February 17, 2018.
Corresponding Author: Louise A. Mawn, MD, Vanderbilt Eye Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2311 Pierce Ave, Nashville, TN 37232-8808 (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Published Online: April 19, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.0846
Author Contributions: Drs Tamez and Brown had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design: Tamez, Wayman, Mawn.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Tamez, Tauscher, Brown.
Drafting of the manuscript: Tamez, Brown, Mawn.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
Statistical analysis: Tamez, Tauscher, Brown.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Wayman, Mawn.
Study supervision: Mawn.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported.
Funding/Support: Supported in part by a Physician Scientist Award (Dr Mawn) and an unrestricted grant to the Vanderbilt Eye Institute from Research to Prevent Blindness.
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
You currently have no searches saved.