Increasing Trends in Matriculant Publications in the Residency Match: A Scoping Review

The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP), which is responsible for matching medical students with residency programs in the United States, quantifies an applicant's research by aggregating their total number of publications, presentations, and abstracts (PPA). However, the program does not differentiate between peer-reviewed publications, which are typically academic studies evaluated by peers in the field, and other types of research output. While several studies have examined the peer-reviewed publications of matriculants in specific specialties, none have compared these specialties to identify trends across the residency match. Comparing peer-reviewed publications across specialties helps the NRMP, medical schools, and applicants identify evolving research expectations and align efforts with specialty-specific benchmarks. Therefore, this scoping review aimed to comprehensively synthesize studies that investigated the peer-reviewed publications of matched medical students. A systematic literature search was performed in September 2023 to identify and extract bibliometric variables from studies analyzing the peer-reviewed publications of matriculated medical students. Of 164 articles screened, 18 studies across 10 specialties were included. Neurosurgery matriculants had the most publications (4.67), whereas ophthalmology had the least (1.23). The proportion of students with zero peer-reviewed publications at application ranged from 22% (neurosurgery) to 47% (orthopedic surgery) and decreased over time for orthopedic and plastic surgery. Publications increased over time for nearly all reported specialties. Higher publication quantity and author H-index were associated with matching into higher-tiered residency programs across all analyzed specialties. The quantity and quality of medical student peer-reviewed publications continue to increase, and higher quality and quantity are associated with matching into higher-tiered programs. Given these trends, medical schools/advisors should continue fostering research mentorship, and students should prioritize both research quantity and quality to optimally prepare for the match. Simultaneously, residency selection committees and policymakers should critically assess whether strong research backgrounds are an optimal method to stratify future physicians and whether there are other avenues to prevent a growing research arms race.