Publication misrepresentation among neurosurgery residency applicants: an increasing problem

Area of Science:

• Neurosurgery
• Medical Education
• Academic Integrity

Background:

• Scholarly achievement reporting relies on the honor principle, crucial for maintaining scientific integrity.
• Misrepresentation of publications is a recognized issue across various academic fields.
• An observed increase in reported publications among neurosurgery residency applicants prompted this investigation.

Purpose of the Study:

• To determine if increased publication counts in neurosurgery residency applications reflect genuine academic productivity or inflated reporting.
• To identify specific application variables associated with inaccurate citation reporting.

Main Methods:

• Retrospective review of neurosurgery residency applications from 2006 (n=148) and 2012 (n=194).
• Verification of "accepted" or "in press" publications using online databases (Google Scholar, PubMed) and direct journal contact.
• Analysis of demographic data and use of zero-inflated negative binomial regression to identify predictors of misrepresentation.

Main Results:

• The percentage of applicants reporting publications rose from 47% in 2006 to 97% in 2012 (p < 0.001).
• The incidence of misrepresentation also increased, from 33% in 2006 to 45% in 2012.
• In 2012, applicants with more reported works and those from unranked US medical schools were more likely to have erroneous citations.

Conclusions:

• Both legitimate and misrepresented scholarly works reported by applicants have increased.
• Misrepresentation is more prevalent among applicants from unranked US medical schools and those with higher reported publication numbers.
• Verification of citations is recommended for residency programs to uphold trustworthiness in neurosurgery.