(1117) Investigating the Validty of Listed Research Experiences on Otolaryngology Residency Applications

Introduction: The mean number of research experiences reported by applicants to otolaryngology has steadily increased over the last 10 years, and there is an increased number of experiences for matched applicants compared to non-matched applicants. In an effort to gain an advantage, applicants may misrepresent their experiences through improper authorship reporting or listing submitted publications that never get accepted. Other specialties such as neurosurgery and ophthalmology have objectively reported this, but there is a paucity of data pertaining to otolaryngology.

Methods: An IRB-approved retrospective analysis of 747 applicants to the EVMS otolaryngology residency program from the two most recent application cycles was performed. Every peer-reviewed publication listed by each applicant was searched for on an academic database to verify publication within 1 year of application submission.

Results: Less than half of the publications that applicants listed as “submitted” were published within 1 year. Only half of applicants were successful at getting greater than 50% of their “submitted” projects published within 1 year. In general, the publications listed as “accepted” or “in print” were more reliably published.

Conclusions: Residency programs should be cognizant of publication misrepresentation and critical of listed research experiences. This study highlights the need for advisors to provide students with more transparent guidance to ensure that reporting of research experiences is accurate. Future studies should focus on methods to mitigate this issue with exploration of standardized application verifications, either manually or via new software, and the effect these changes may have on quelling superfluous publication numbers.