Publication Inaccuracies Listed in General Surgery Residency Training Program Applications

Background: Professionalism is a core competency that is difficult to assess. We examined the incidence of publication inaccuracies in Electronic Residency Application Service applications to our training program as potential indicators of unprofessional behavior.

Study design: We reviewed all 2019-2020 National Resident Matching Program applicants being considered for interview. Applicant demographic characteristics recorded included standardized examination scores, gender, medical school, and medical school ranking (2019 US News & World Report). Publication verification by a medical librarian was performed for peer-reviewed journal articles/abstracts, peer-reviewed book chapters, and peer-reviewed online publications. Inaccuracies were classified as "nonserious" (eg incorrect author order without author rank promotion) or "serious" (eg miscategorization, non-peer-reviewed journal, incorrect author order with author rank promotion, nonauthorship of cited existing publication, and unverifiable publication). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed for demographic characteristics to identify predictors of overall inaccuracy and serious inaccuracy.

Results: Of 319 applicants, 48 (15%) had a total of 98 inaccuracies; after removing nonserious inaccuracies, 37 (12%) with serious inaccuracies remained. Seven publications were reported in predatory open access journals. In the regression model, none of the variables (US vs non-US medical school, gender, or medical school ranking) were significantly associated with overall inaccuracy or serious inaccuracy.

Conclusions: One in 8 applicants (12%) interviewing at a general surgery residency program were found to have a serious inaccuracy in publication reporting on their Electronic Residency Application Service application. These inaccuracies might represent inattention to detail or professionalism transgressions.