Abstract:TO THE EDITOR: We read with great interest the article by Wadhwa et al.1 (Wadhwa H, Shah SS, Shan J, et al. The neurosurgery applicant’s “arms race”: analysis of medical student publication in the Neurosurgery Residency Match. J Neurosurg. Published online November 1, 2019. doi:10.3171/2019.8.JNS191256), in which the authors comprehensively analyzed the research productivity of neurosurgical residency applicants. Wadhwa et al. included the publication volume for all neurosurgery interns in 2009, 2011, 2014, 2016, and 2018, and showed that mean publication numbers among interns at the top 40 programs were significantly higher than that of other interns. Similarly, the 2018 National Resident Matching Report “Charting Outcomes in the Match” reported a significant difference in the mean number of scholarly works (abstracts, presentations, and publications) between matched and unmatched neurosurgery residents across the US (18.3 in matched applicants vs 8.9 in unmatched applicants).2 The mean number of scholarly works in matched neurosurgery applicants was also easily the highest amongst the matched applicants of all specialties analyzed in the report. The authors must be congratulated on their excellent work in providing an in-depth analysis of the research output of neurosurgery residency applicants. The results of this study suggest that neurosurgery is one of the more competitive residency specialties and research productivity is an important aspect in determining an applicant’s competitiveness. As such, one would expect medical students pursuing neurosurgery to excel in their research endeavors. Healthy competition drives productivity and growth in these students, spurring them to strive to learn and improve. This ensures that future residents are at their maximum potential at the point of entry into the neurosurgery program. Evidently, healthy competition benefits the development of both the individual student and the neurosurgical specialty in general. However, competitiveness is a double-edged sword. While healthy competition may be a driver of development, increased competitiveness can be an incentive for an individual to get ahead by any and all means necessary. An example of such unhealthy behavior is the misrepresentation of one’s research output on one’s application. In a recent article by Kistka et al., the authors analyzed all neurosurgery residency applications to Vanderbilt University in 2006 and 2012, and compared the incidence of publication misrepresentation between the 2 years.3 They demonstrated a significant increase in the rate of publication misrepresentation among applicants from 2006 to 2012 (33% vs 45%). Prior to the study by Kistka et al., the most recent analysis of neurosurgery residency applications by Cohen-Gadol et al. in 2001–2002 found misrepresentation in only 6% of all applicants of the Mayo Medical School.4 While we acknowledge that a direct comparison cannot be made between the studies due to the heterogeneous study samples comprising applicants of different residency programs, this huge difference suggests a rising trend in misrepresentation and should not be taken lightly. In a recent editorial, Dr. Heros very nicely outlined the reasons why research output can be so highly valued in today’s residency applications, as well as the factors that contribute to scholarly misrepresentation.5 Dr. Heros advocates for increased emphasis to be placed on the quality and impact of publications rather than the absolute quantity. We would like to add that providing recognition not just for the amount of research output, but more importantly for the work ethic, learning attitude, and values of a student or applicant (such as integrity and compassion), can also play a critical role in minimizing overemphasis on research numbers. In essence, healthy competition should always be encouraged, but not at the price of intellectual dishonesty.

Implications for neurosurgery of medical schools leaving the United States News and World Report

Medical School Rankings: Time to End or Time to Amend?

Analysis on Ranking Methodology of U.S.News & World Report Ranking of Graduate Schools and Its Enlightenments

Relativity, Rank, and the US News Health's Cardiology, Heart, and Vascular Surgery Best Hospitals

Is Bigger, Better? Exploring U.S. News Graduate Education Program Rankings and Internet Characteristics

"Transabdominal Breast Augmentation: A Review of 114 Cases Performed over 14 Years".

Public Board Score Reporting Undermines Holistic Review for Residency Selection

The 2021 Neurosurgery Match: An Analysis of the Impact of Virtual Interviewing and Other COVID-19-Related Changes

Competency-Based Medical Education in a Norm-Referenced World: A Root Cause Analysis of Challenges to the Competency-Based Paradigm in Medical School

Medical School Admissions: Focusing on Producing a Physician Workforce That Addresses the Needs of the United States

The Magnet Recognition Program® and Its Influence on Hospital Rankings: A Connection With US News and World Report

Neurosurgery as a Top-Drawer Choice for Residency in India: Reality or Myth?

Orthopaedic Program Reputation and Association With Social Media Utilization and Engagement

Continued underrepresentation of historically excluded groups in the neurosurgery pipeline: an analysis of racial and ethnic trends across stages of medical training from 2012 to 2020

A Longitudinal Analysis of University Rankings

Letter to the Editor. Healthy competition.

Comparison of medical students' considerations in choosing a specialty: 2020 vs. 2009/10

Imbalanced specialty representation of USMLE and NBME test writers

Effect of USMLE Score Cutoffs on Recruitment of Underrepresented Applicants in the Urology Match

University Rankings in Sport Science: A True Reflection of Excellence?

Impact of USMLE Pass/Fail Step 1 Scoring on Current Medical Students