Analysis of academic publishing output among 1634 successful applicants in the 2011-2018 neurosurgery residency match

Background Research productivity is a key criterion for applicant selection reported by residency program directors. Research volume reported on neurosurgery residency applications has risen steadily over the past decade. Objective Perform retrospective bibliographic searches of successful applicants who matched into U.S. neurosurgery residency programs from 2011 to 2018, and assess the relationship between academic publishing and residency placement. Methods Gender, MD/PhD status, U.S. News research ranking of medical school, and international medical graduate status (IMG) were determined for 1634 successful applicants from 2011 to 2018. Indexed publications before and after the start of residency were tabulated by Scopus®. Publication counts were stratified by first author, basic/clinical science, case reports, reviews, or other research. We then compared publishing trends across demographic variables and match cohorts. Results Average pre-residency publications increased from 2.6 [1.7, 3.4] in 2011 to 6.5 [5.1, 7.9] in 2018. Men, PhD-holders, Top 20 and Top 40 U.S. medical school graduates, and IMGs had higher pre-residency publication counts overall. After stratifying by match cohort, however, there was no significant effect of gender on pre-residency publications. Applicants matching into residency programs with highly ranked affiliated hospitals had significantly higher pre-residency publications. Conclusion Publishing volume of successful neurosurgery applicants in the U.S. has risen recently and is associated with the stature of matched residency programs. Given the gap between verifiable and claimed research on residency applications, attention is needed to objectively evaluate research credentials in the selection process. The impending phase out of USMLE step 1 scores may increase emphasis on academic productivity.