Letters
Verifying information in pharmacy residency applications
I
read with interest the article by Ensor et al.1 on streamlining the process for the initial review of pharmacy residency applications. The authors identified seven applicant characteristics that most strongly predicted an invitation to interview. The substantial amount of time required to evaluate an increasing number of candidate applications can create challenges for residency program directors and preceptors, and focusing on these seven factors could make the initial review process more efficient. Another challenge with the residency candidate review process is that selfreported information provided by the applicant may not be accurate, and it is not practical to verify all information provided by every applicant. Although no studies have specifically evaluated pharmacy residency applicants, residency program directors and preceptors should be aware that several studies have found a high prevalence of misrepresentation among applicants to medical or surgical residency programs.2-5 These studies have found frequent inaccuracies in professional association involvement2 and a significant number of applicants misrepresenting publications.3-5 Examples of publication misrepresentation found in these studies include the reporting of authorship of an article that does not exist, false claims of authorship of an existing article, and advancement of the applicant in the order of authors (e.g., listing oneself as first author when he or she was a middle author). Possible explanations for misrepresentation include the resident wanting to gain a competitive advantage and perceiving a low risk of being caught, as well as innocent misunderstandings or errors. Since it can be time-consuming to verify the accuracy of citations with online databases such as PubMed and Google Scholar, the verification process can be simplified. On the day of the interview, applicants could be asked to bring PDF copies of all published articles, paper copies of all abstracts and posters, cop-
ies of the decision letters for manuscripts that are accepted and in press, and copies of the submission letters for manuscripts that are submitted and under review. Alternatively, applicants could be asked to e-mail these documents to the residency program director for verification. For those applicants who authored an article that is in press or submitted and under review, details about the manuscript’s status may not be available to the applicant if the applicant was not the corresponding author. In this situation, the candidate could request a copy of the necessary documents from the corresponding author. 1. Ensor CR, Walker CL, Rider SK et al. Streamlining the process for initial review of pharmacy residency applications: an analytic approach. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2013; 70:1670-5. 2. Roellig MS, Katz ED. Inaccuracies on applications for emergency medicine residency training. Acad Emerg Med. 2004; 11:992-4. 3. Kuo PC, Schroeder RA, Shah A et al. “Ghost” publications among applicants to a general surgery residency program. J Am Coll Surg. 2008; 207:485-9. 4. Nosnik IP, Friedmann P, Nagler HM et al. Resume fraud: unverifiable publications of urology training program applicants. J Urol. 2010; 183:1520-3. 5. Beswick DM, Man LX, Johnston BA et al. Publication misrepresentation among otolaryngology residency applicants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010; 143:815-9.
Bryan Dotson, Pharm.D., BCPS, Clinical Pharmacist Specialist, Critical Care Department of Pharmacy Harper University Hospital Detroit, MI [email protected]
The author has declared no potential conflicts of interest. DOI 10.2146/ajhp130628
W
e are glad that our article was received positively and will be helpful in the review process for residency applications. Dr. Dotson raises an interesting point regarding verification of the accuracy of application materials and makes strong recommendations to increase the efficiency of that process.
One sentence in particular in Dr. Dotson’s letter caught our attention. He says that focusing on the seven factors we identified as being predictive of an interview invitation could make the review process more efficient. We are concerned that he and possibly other readers intend to use those particular factors in their own process for reviewing residency applications. As we mentioned in our article, we advocate our process for determining significant factors, but we suspect that the predictive factors might vary from institution to institution on the basis of local values, needs, and preferences. Therefore, we recommend that, if possible, each institution conduct its own analysis to establish the list of factors that most closely reflect its local culture. Kenneth M. Shermock, Pharm.D., Ph.D., Director Center for Medication Quality and Outcomes Department of Pharmacy [email protected] Daniel M. Ashby, M.S., FASHP, Senior Director of Pharmacy and Program Director, Postgraduate Year 1 and 2 Residencies in Health-System Pharmacy Administration Cathy L. Walker, B.S.Pharm., Assistant Director, Education and Training, and Program Director, Postgraduate Year 1 Residency in Pharmacy Practice Johns Hopkins Hospital Baltimore, MD Shyla K. Rider, B.S., Pharm.D. Candidate College of Pharmacy The Ohio State University Columbus, OH Estela Uy Clemente, B.S., Pharm.D. Candidate College of Pharmacy Harding University Searcy, AR Christopher R. Ensor, Pharm.D., BCPS (AQ-CV), Assistant Professor Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy Pittsburgh, PA
The authors have declared no potential conflicts of interest. DOI 10.2146/ajhp130739
Am J Health-Syst Pharm—Vol 71 May 15, 2014
787
Copyright of American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy is the property of American Society of Health System Pharmacists and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Verifying information in pharmacy residency applications
I
read with interest the article by Ensor et al.1 on streamlining the process for the initial review of pharmacy residency applications. The authors identified seven applicant characteristics that most strongly predicted an invitation to interview. The substantial amount of time required to evaluate an increasing number of candidate applications can create challenges for residency program directors and preceptors, and focusing on these seven factors could make the initial review process more efficient. Another challenge with the residency candidate review process is that selfreported information provided by the applicant may not be accurate, and it is not practical to verify all information provided by every applicant. Although no studies have specifically evaluated pharmacy residency applicants, residency program directors and preceptors should be aware that several studies have found a high prevalence of misrepresentation among applicants to medical or surgical residency programs.2-5 These studies have found frequent inaccuracies in professional association involvement2 and a significant number of applicants misrepresenting publications.3-5 Examples of publication misrepresentation found in these studies include the reporting of authorship of an article that does not exist, false claims of authorship of an existing article, and advancement of the applicant in the order of authors (e.g., listing oneself as first author when he or she was a middle author). Possible explanations for misrepresentation include the resident wanting to gain a competitive advantage and perceiving a low risk of being caught, as well as innocent misunderstandings or errors. Since it can be time-consuming to verify the accuracy of citations with online databases such as PubMed and Google Scholar, the verification process can be simplified. On the day of the interview, applicants could be asked to bring PDF copies of all published articles, paper copies of all abstracts and posters, cop-
ies of the decision letters for manuscripts that are accepted and in press, and copies of the submission letters for manuscripts that are submitted and under review. Alternatively, applicants could be asked to e-mail these documents to the residency program director for verification. For those applicants who authored an article that is in press or submitted and under review, details about the manuscript’s status may not be available to the applicant if the applicant was not the corresponding author. In this situation, the candidate could request a copy of the necessary documents from the corresponding author. 1. Ensor CR, Walker CL, Rider SK et al. Streamlining the process for initial review of pharmacy residency applications: an analytic approach. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2013; 70:1670-5. 2. Roellig MS, Katz ED. Inaccuracies on applications for emergency medicine residency training. Acad Emerg Med. 2004; 11:992-4. 3. Kuo PC, Schroeder RA, Shah A et al. “Ghost” publications among applicants to a general surgery residency program. J Am Coll Surg. 2008; 207:485-9. 4. Nosnik IP, Friedmann P, Nagler HM et al. Resume fraud: unverifiable publications of urology training program applicants. J Urol. 2010; 183:1520-3. 5. Beswick DM, Man LX, Johnston BA et al. Publication misrepresentation among otolaryngology residency applicants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010; 143:815-9.
Bryan Dotson, Pharm.D., BCPS, Clinical Pharmacist Specialist, Critical Care Department of Pharmacy Harper University Hospital Detroit, MI [email protected]
The author has declared no potential conflicts of interest. DOI 10.2146/ajhp130628
W
e are glad that our article was received positively and will be helpful in the review process for residency applications. Dr. Dotson raises an interesting point regarding verification of the accuracy of application materials and makes strong recommendations to increase the efficiency of that process.
One sentence in particular in Dr. Dotson’s letter caught our attention. He says that focusing on the seven factors we identified as being predictive of an interview invitation could make the review process more efficient. We are concerned that he and possibly other readers intend to use those particular factors in their own process for reviewing residency applications. As we mentioned in our article, we advocate our process for determining significant factors, but we suspect that the predictive factors might vary from institution to institution on the basis of local values, needs, and preferences. Therefore, we recommend that, if possible, each institution conduct its own analysis to establish the list of factors that most closely reflect its local culture. Kenneth M. Shermock, Pharm.D., Ph.D., Director Center for Medication Quality and Outcomes Department of Pharmacy [email protected] Daniel M. Ashby, M.S., FASHP, Senior Director of Pharmacy and Program Director, Postgraduate Year 1 and 2 Residencies in Health-System Pharmacy Administration Cathy L. Walker, B.S.Pharm., Assistant Director, Education and Training, and Program Director, Postgraduate Year 1 Residency in Pharmacy Practice Johns Hopkins Hospital Baltimore, MD Shyla K. Rider, B.S., Pharm.D. Candidate College of Pharmacy The Ohio State University Columbus, OH Estela Uy Clemente, B.S., Pharm.D. Candidate College of Pharmacy Harding University Searcy, AR Christopher R. Ensor, Pharm.D., BCPS (AQ-CV), Assistant Professor Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy Pittsburgh, PA
The authors have declared no potential conflicts of interest. DOI 10.2146/ajhp130739
Am J Health-Syst Pharm—Vol 71 May 15, 2014
787
Copyright of American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy is the property of American Society of Health System Pharmacists and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
