# Research Verification in the Application Review Process for Orthopaedic Surgery Residency

## TL;DR

This study explores how orthopaedic surgery residency programs verify research claims in medical student applications and finds that most do not due to time constraints.

## Contribution

The study provides new insights into the lack of standardized research verification practices in orthopaedic surgery residency applications.

## Key findings

- 60% of respondents did not verify research listed on residency applications.
- Most verification methods involved checking PubMed or contacting research mentors.
- 80% of respondents believe research verification should be standard practice.

## Abstract

Introduction: The integrity of applications submitted by medical students applying for orthopaedic surgery residency has been a topic of concern within the medical community in recent years. Although research misrepresentation is a recognized issue, there is limited information on how orthopaedic surgery residency programs verify the research contributions listed by medical students during the application process. The purpose of this study is to identify if and how orthopaedic surgery residency programs verify the research section of an application.

Methods: A 28-question anonymous survey was distributed in March 2024 to program directors, assistant program directors, and research directors in the department of orthopaedic surgery at participating Collaborative Orthopaedic Educational Research Group (COERG) programs. The survey was open for three weeks and assessed the respondents’ background, their application review practices, and the reasoning behind these practices.

Results: There were a total of 10 respondents: eight identified as male (80%), one identified as female (10%), and one identified as a transgender female (10%). Six of 10 (60%) respondents did not verify research listed on orthopaedic surgery residency applications. Only three (30%) verified both posters and publications, and one (10%) participant verified publications only. Of those who verified research, the most common verification process was both checking PubMed/similar platforms (three, 33%) and contacting research mentors or collaborators (three, 33%). Six (60%) respondents were at least somewhat concerned with research misrepresentation, and eight (80%) felt that verification of research on Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) applications should be standard practice. The primary reason cited by programs that did not verify research was the significant time investment required to establish a consistent process, accounting for eight (47%) responses. Four (40%) respondents felt that incorporating research verification into the application review process would extend each review by 31 minutes to an hour.

Conclusion: Orthopaedic surgery residency programs are generally concerned with research misrepresentation among applicants; however, most programs are not yet actively verifying research reported in the ERAS application. The primary concern among programs is the time required for verification. There is a need for the creation of standardized research verification practices that can be adopted by all programs. Programs may consider implementing more efficient verification strategies or prioritizing confirmation of an applicant’s most significant research achievements to ensure a fair and accurate evaluation of applicants.