Year: 2022
Type: letter
Abstract: We thank Sindhu et al1Sindhu KK Jones BM Nehlsen AD et al.In regard to Huang et al.Adv Radiat Oncol. 2022; 7100932Google Scholar for their insight and comments on our article “Analyzing the Role of Research in the Radiation Oncology Match.”2Huang A Gunther JR Lin LL. Analyzing the role of research in the radiation oncology match.Adv Radiat Oncol. 2022; 7100891Google Scholar We agree with the notion that Doximity's reputation rankings have drawbacks and may be subject to response bias. As Sindhu et al noted, these rankings are the result of nominations via survey of Doximity members who are board-certified in radiation oncology. However, the methodology used to create the reputation rankings for each field is more nuanced, and this approach may help to mitigate sources of bias3Doximity. Residency navigator 2020-2021. Available at: https://www.residency.doximity.com. Accessed April 19, 2021.Google Scholar:1.Self-nomination votes by alumni members are weighted less than votes by nonalumni members. These values are then weighted against the inverse size of a given program's alumni member base on Doximity.2.Nominations from recent residency graduates are weighted more heavily than those who finished training at an earlier point in time. Sindhu et al also found that the correlation between the first author h-index of recently graduated residents and their respective program was substantially greater for top 20 radiation oncology residency programs compared with non–top 20 programs. It is possible that there is a significant number of radiation oncologists who can agree what the top residency programs in the nation are while there may be considerable disagreement on how to rank lesser-known, smaller, and/or newer programs. This observation is supported in our original study, in which we determined a significant difference in the number of first-author publications and program tiers between tier 1 (top 20) programs and tiers 2, 3, and 4, but differences between other tiers were not found to be statistically significant. Because of the ambiguity and subjective nature of rankings based on reputation, we relinquished the potentially less useful discriminatory value that individual ranks provide and converted the Doximity rankings from a numeric variable to an ordinal variable separated into 4 tiers for analysis. Despite the inherent limitations, Doximity rankings remain widely used and broadly accessible to medical students, residents, and program directors alike. Although there is utility in giving prospective applicants an idea of approximate program stratification, it is not recommended to rely on these rankings alone for creation of rank lists in the residency match.
Source: Advances in Radiation Oncology
Authors: Austin Huang, Jillian R. Gunther, Lilie L. Lin
Language: English
Subfield: Gender Studies
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $2,000
OpenAlex ID: W4309348720