Back to 2024 Abstracts
Ghost Publications and Inflation on the Plastic Surgery Common Application
Daniela Lee, BS, Kirsten Schuster, MD, JD, John B. Park, PharmD, James E. Fanning, BS, Maria J. Escobar-Domingo, MD, Vikas Bommineni, BA, Angelica Hernandez Alvarez, MD, Iulianna C. Taritsa, BA, Ryan P. Cauley, MD, MPH, Bernard T. Lee, MD, MBA, MPH, Samuel J. Lin, MD, MBA
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
Background: With the change of Step 1 to pass/fail, there is an even greater emphasis on research, with recent matched applicants averaging 28.4 total abstracts, presentations, and publications. Such high expectations may lead to temptations to embellish, especially in areas difficult to verify on the new Plastic Surgery Common Application (PSCA). We aimed to quantify rates of possible publication misrepresentation in the most recent PSCA applicant pool.
Methods: A retrospective review of 336 applications to our institution's integrated plastic surgery residency program was performed for 2023-2024. The following data was collected on a confidential and encrypted spreadsheet by three individuals unrelated to the 2023-2024 application cycle: applicant demographics, "number of total peer-reviewed publications" reported on PSCA, and basic publication-related information from CVs. An Internet search for any manuscripts marked as "published" was conducted.
Results: The mean "number of total peer-reviewed publication number" self-reported on PSCA was 10.8, with no significant difference between those matched and unmatched. 31 (9.1%) had inconsistent information regarding their publication list, including incorrect author lists and unsearchable manuscripts, with no difference between matched and unmatched cohorts. More common was inflation or mislabelling of the "number of total peer-reviewed publications" self-reported on PSCA, done by 96 applicants (28.3%) via inclusion of "submitted" or "in-progress" manuscripts, and 136 (40.1%) via inclusion of abstracts from presentations or non-peer-reviewed articles. A greater proportion of applicants inflated in the unmatched (62.4%) than matched (48.1%) cohort (p=0.011).
Conclusion: The rate of potential research falsification in the PSCA is within the range found in literature for previous ERAS cycles; however, possible inflation is still of concern. In the future, we encourage national discourse on measures to prevent professional misconduct and have greater standardization for research productivity reporting in the PSCA.
Back to 2024 Abstracts
