Inaccuracies in Orthopaedic Research Fellowship Applications: A Study on Authorship Misrepresentations.

Abstract

Background: Academic integrity is a cornerstone of scientific research. However, increasing competition may cause applicants seeking competitive positions to report their research contributions inaccurately. An orthopaedic research fellowship offers substantial value for medical students and recent medical graduates to strengthen their applications for a residency position. Misrepresented authorship and publication history may distort applicant evaluations and compromise the credibility of the selection process.

Materials and methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on all applications received during the previous two consecutive application cycles (2024 and 2025) by our adult reconstruction research fellowship located in an academic medical center. Data were collected from all curriculum vitae received, which were cross-referenced with indexed databases to verify publication status and author order. Misrepresentations were categorized into (1) publication discrepancies (nonexistent or withdrawn papers) and (2) exaggerated authorship positions. Descriptive statistics and comparative analysis were performed.

Results: A total of 87 applications were included in our analysis. Of the 87 applications, 15 (17.2%) were found to have either a publication discrepancy or an exaggerated authorship position. Publication discrepancies occurred in 8 applications (9.2%), while 9 applications (10.3%) demonstrated exaggerated authorship position(s). There were no significant differences between medical student versus medical graduate applicants nor among US medical applicants versus international medical graduate applicants, for number nor types of misrepresentations found.

Discussion: The increasing competitiveness of orthopaedic surgery residency programs has led applicants to emphasize research productivity as a key component of their applications. However, discrepancies in self-reported research output highlight the potential for misrepresentation. These findings raise ethical concerns regarding honesty in academic reporting. Even minor misrepresentations can undermine the integrity of the application process, diminish trust among reviewers, and compromise the fairness of candidate evaluation. Implementing systems such as Open Researcher and Contributor ID could enhance transparency, ensure accurate attribution, and mitigate inconsistencies in research reporting, ultimately improving the research fellowship application process.