Fernandez-Perez Antonio, Stern Jonathan M, Cruz-Ossa Natalia, Hernandez Victor H, D'Apuzzo Michele R, McNamara Colin A
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
JB JS Open Access. 2025 Sep 11;10(3). doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.25.00074. eCollection 2025 Jul-Sep.
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.
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 Misrepresentations were categorized into (1) publication discrepancies (nonexistent or withdrawn papers) and (2) exaggerated authorship positions.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.
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.
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.
学术诚信是科学研究的基石。然而，竞争日益激烈可能导致寻求有竞争力职位的申请者不准确地报告他们的研究贡献。骨科研究奖学金对于医学生和刚毕业的医学研究生增强其住院医师职位申请具有重要价值。虚假的作者身份和发表历史可能会扭曲对申请者的评估，并损害选拔过程的可信度。
对位于一所学术医疗中心的成人重建研究奖学金项目在前两个连续申请周期（2024年和2025年）收到的所有申请进行回顾性队列分析。从收到的所有简历中收集数据，并与索引数据库进行交叉核对，以核实发表状态和作者顺序。虚假陈述分为两类：（1）发表差异（不存在或已撤回的论文）和（2）夸大的作者身份。进行了描述性统计和比较分析。
我们的分析共纳入87份申请。在这87份申请中，有15份（17.2%）被发现存在发表差异或夸大的作者身份。8份申请（9.2%）存在发表差异，而9份申请（10.3%）存在夸大的作者身份。在发现的虚假陈述数量和类型方面，医学生申请者与医学研究生申请者之间、美国医学申请者与国际医学研究生申请者之间均无显著差异。
骨科手术住院医师项目竞争日益激烈，导致申请者将研究产出作为申请的关键组成部分加以强调。然而，自我报告的研究产出差异凸显了虚假陈述的可能性。这些发现引发了关于学术报告诚实性的伦理问题。即使是轻微的虚假陈述也可能破坏申请过程的公正性，削弱评审者之间的信任，并损害候选人评估的公平性。实施诸如开放研究者与贡献者识别码之类的系统可以提高透明度，确保准确的归属，并减少研究报告中的不一致性，最终改善研究奖学金申请过程。
