Nationwide study of publication misrepresentation in applicants to residency.

OBJECTIVES This study was conducted to assess the prevalence of research publication misrepresentation amongst Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) applicants to a single surgical subspecialty residency as a potential means of assessing professional behaviour. METHODS The authors reviewed CaRMS application forms to Canadian otolaryngology residency programmes over a 3-year period (2006-2008) for peer-reviewed publications reported as 'published', 'accepted' and 'in press'. Citations were verified by searching PubMed, Google Scholar and electronic journals. Misrepresentation was defined as any of: (i) falsely claimed authorship of an existing article; (ii) claimed authorship of a non-existing article, and (iii) improper ordering of authorship. Outcomes included descriptive statistics, as well as sub-analyses pertaining to age, gender, affiliated medical school and academic degree, and number of publications per applicant. RESULTS A total of 427 peer-reviewed publications were reported by 124 of 182 applicants (68% of applicants reported at least one publication). Of the 385 verifiable publications, 47 (12% of articles) were misrepresented by 29 applicants (23% of applicants claiming publication) self-reporting at least one publication. Age, gender, location of medical training, prior academic degree and number of citations per applicant did not relate to likelihood of misrepresentation (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS This study documents the nationwide prevalence of publication misrepresentation amongst applicants to Canadian otolaryngology residency programmes. The high rate of misrepresentation aligns with data reported in the literature and highlights the need to institute measures to dissuade graduates from this form of unprofessional behaviour.