ENT applicants faking research?

[resxn]

Anyone read the white journal this month? 45% of the declared publications/presentations were not verifiable. Granted there are some potentially legitimate reasons this is the case--truly pending articles for one, but even with the addition of PMID numbers, some supposed publications are still not verifiable. Here's the abstract for those without access. FWIW, it would be an automatic DQ for me if I found a lie of this type on a med student app for residency or a resident app to join my practice.

Results. In total, 489 applications were reviewed: 243 before PMID numbers were requested and 246 after. Of 2300 listed publications, 125 (5%) were not actual publications and 460 (20%) were in pending status. Forty-five percent (775/1715) could not be verified: 660 of 953 (69%) abstracts/posters, 18 of 47 (38%) chapters, and 97 of 715 (14%) journal articles. Abstracts/posters and book chapters were hardest to verify. The proportion of overall reported publications that could be verified was lower following the addition of PMID to the ERAS application (P = .0003), and the proportion of verifiable journal articles was unchanged from 86.0% to 86.9% (P = .62). Unlike previous findings, gender and medical school ranking were not associated with ghost publications.

Conclusion. A substantial number of publications, especially book chapters and posters/abstracts, listed on otolaryngol- ogy residency applications could not be verified. The addi- tion of the PMID to applications did not reduce the number of ghost journal publications.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[thinkorswim]

I read this article in its entirety with a dropped jaw.

Of note, the vast majority (about 85%) of all unverifiable publications were abstracts/posters, which may have been presented but not necessarily published and would be difficult to verify by PubMed or Google Scholar. But even then, 13% of journal articles could not be verified with PMID which is an alarming amount.

As for the pending status, the study examined applications from the 2007 and 2008 cycles. Even with this 3-4 year window for publication, only half of the publications listed as pending could be verified.

If people are lying about their publications, it really makes you wonder what else on that application is made up as well...

 

[IceHouse]

my friend has several abstracts accepted and presented
they can not be found online. go figure.

 

[AngkorWuT]

I'm not surprised. I had 2 accepted publications, 1 book chapter, and like 2-3 case reports (none of which were eventually accepted) listed on my application. When I interviewed those case reports were all truly in the "pending" status as they had been submitted but no reply.

I'm not sure how people make this stuff up. I definitely interviewed with the editor in chief or reviewers of the journals that I had submitted to and it would have been a bold faced lie to tell them I had something they accepted when in fact not. Given the "competitive" nature of medical students and in particular Oto applicants these days, I'm not surprised at all people are making stuff up. You play the game or you get played. At least I've been able to get some measure of success doing things the right way...or maybe I'm just the dumb one and the jokes always on me

 

[neutropeniaboy]

While I accept the claim that medical students may not know the exact differences between what is an acceptable publication and what is not (e.g., grant requests, grand rounds, medical school posters), I find it entirely unacceptable that a student would list something that is clearly untrue. Given that many students cannot talk intelligently about any research they have participated in, I believe the findings of this study to be entirely plausible.

If I were to determine that a medical student had listed a publication in a journal that truly was not published, this would be an automatic d/c from the applicant pool.

If I were to determine that a medical student listed a publication as pending that truly wasn't, the same would occur.

Every single abstract, presentation, short communication, case report, letter to the editor, peer-reviewed article and chapter I have submitted/given is immediately identifiable from the source and in Google.

I find it insulting, especially as an academician who serves as a reviewer for 6 journals and actively publishes, that a student would do something like this.

Unethical.

Characteristic of a mentality that I do not want among the residents I train.

 

[senseigmg]

I have a question regarding my ERAS on this topic. I participated in some research, peripherally I'll admit. The project was completed, and a poster was presented at a local research forum, along with projects by the rest of the residents at the hospital I was at. My name is on the poster & the program guide, but cannot be found online.

Should I include this on my ERAS? I feel like it is legitimate, but if PD's are using google to discern if it is real or not, then I would fail that test. Best I could do is bring the actual research forum program guide with me to interviews, but that doesn't help if it my application is tossed out before I get there.

 

[neutropeniaboy]

You can certainly put that on your application. All you really need to do is just indicate that it was presented locally at your school or whatever and when the interviewer inquires about your research, you just need to make it very clear the extent of your research.

This whole rant is not something that should discourage people from doing research.... Rather how it is presented....

 

[ShaggyDog]

also an eras question, is it okay to list a publication that has been submitted but not yet accepted under ERAS? what if it ultimately gets rejected by that journal but accepted by a different journal - the information presented in eras would be technically incorrect, so how would one reconcile that issue?

 

[plauto]

You bring an updated CV to the interviews with you ready to hand out.

 

[OtoHNS]

Just be 100% honest on your application and you'll be fine. I'd imagine that residency programs will look a little closer at applicants' research now that this study has come out...

 

[DoctwoB]

I agree that most of these untraceable publications are likely to be submitted publications in review, abstracts, or posters. The way to fix this is for ERAS to clearly provide multiple categories for publications (e.g. journal article submitted, not yet accepted, vs. accepted, not yet published, etc. ) and provide clear guidelines of what "counts" e.g a poster at a national conference vs. a poster at your med school research fair.

I also don't doubt that there are a few people who flat out make **** up and count on the volume of apps to hide their lies. I know people who did it in applying to med school, and i'm sure people do it in applying to residency. There should be a way to blacklist these folks not just at one program, but at all oto programs.

 

[neutropeniaboy]

Just be 100% honest on your application and you'll be fine. I'd imagine that residency programs will look a little closer at applicants' research now that this study has come out...

Agreed.

Honesty...it's a simple concept, yet so difficult for people to observe.

 

[plauto]

While I am sure that some people make up stuff, I really think that these numbers are way overinflated. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, ERAS does not allow for a thorough explanation of research work. Case in point, I have 8 works submitted and accepted for publication. Only the oldest 5 show up online. Out of the other 3, 2 are with the ENTJournal (2 year delay before they are actually published) and 1 is a book chapter.
I guess an easy way to check is to just call the journal the applicant listed and verify.
During my interviews I ended up running into so many people who had read my article submissions or knew the other people who worked along with me on the projects that it would have been really hard to fake anything.

 

[ShaggyDog]

that's what i figured. i had someone tell me the other day that i shouldn't include papers that are submitted but not eaccepted yet because they may end up in a different journal than what was on eras or rejected altogether. so i wanted to check with the posters here to get their opinions. thanks

 

[OtoHNS]

that's what i figured. i had someone tell me the other day that i shouldn't include papers that are submitted but not eaccepted yet because they may end up in a different journal than what was on eras or rejected altogether. so i wanted to check with the posters here to get their opinions. thanks

As long as you accurately describe your research, it shouldn't be a problem.

I.e. listing something like Shaggydog et al. "Case report on interesting stuff" [Submitted to X Journal] would be fine.

Also, I don't know how it is now since in my day we still were early match, but I definitely listed unpublished research projects that I was working on.

Just make sure that you're not misrepresenting any of your research, i.e. specify clearly if it's published, accepted, submitted but not accepted yet, or not published at all yet.

 

[Germanada]

this has actually turned into a great thread re: what research to list and how on your app, so thanks for that

Is it fair game to list presentations / talks that were given at conferences where you were listed as co-author on the abstract & presentation but somebody else presented, or are those to be left off?

E.g., I worked as an RA full time for a while in a lab, and the projects with grad students I worked on I got listed as co author on on pubs and conference presentations (e.g. Gradstudent, Germanada, PI "The effect of bla on bla" ). I know I am only applying next year, but I figured this thread is a good opportunity to ask whether those are worth anything or if they should just be discarded for the purpose of residency apps...

 

[OtoHNS]

this has actually turned into a great thread re: what research to list and how on your app, so thanks for that

Is it fair game to list presentations / talks that were given at conferences where you were listed as co-author on the abstract & presentation but somebody else presented, or are those to be left off?

E.g., I worked as an RA full time for a while in a lab, and the projects with grad students I worked on I got listed as co author on on pubs and conference presentations (e.g. Gradstudent, Germanada, PI "The effect of bla on bla" ). I know I am only applying next year, but I figured this thread is a good opportunity to ask whether those are worth anything or if they should just be discarded for the purpose of residency apps...

IMO it's perfectly fair to list any medical/scientific research projects that you have worked on in medical school, undergrad, or in a graduate program if applicable.

If the project was published in a journal (or a book chapter), I think it's fair to cite the publication if you are listed as one of the authors (doesn't have to be the first author). Also fair to cite the article if it has been accepted by a journal but not published yet, or if it has been submitted but not accepted yet. Just clearly specify the status of the article.

If the project was presented at a conference, I would only list that in your application if you were the one that presented it. You could still list the project and your role, but don't describe it as a presentation unless you actually presented it.

For all other research experience, you should definitely still list the project and your role in it.

Ultimately, you know if you really worked on a project or not. Be honest and things will work out.

And finally, if anything I just said conflicts with the instructions on the ERAS application, go with the ERAS instructions...

 

[Germanada]

Thank you very much, I appreciate the input.

 

[Reckoning]

Not new data either. Barry Schaitkin studied this a few a years ago with the same "alarming" results. Basically students are listing everything that could be construed as interactions in a research forum. However anyone with a background in research should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Generally, I am turned off by fluff in a CV, so an extra line winds up detracting from the true merits of an application.