Introduction Research productivity is commonly used as an objective metric for applicant differentiation in the integrated plastic and reconstructive surgery match process. Few studies have examined the content, timing, and predictive value of peer-reviewed research output among matched plastic and reconstructive surgery applicants. Methods In this cross-sectional study, first-year residents matched into integrated plastic surgery programs during the 2024–2025 cycle were identified. Research metrics were collected from PubMed, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate, and subspecialty focus and journal characteristics were categorized for all publications. Statistical analyses included Spearman correlation, Mann-Whitney U tests, and a multivariable logistic regression to identify independent predictors of matching at a top 20 Doximity-ranked program. Results Among 224 matched applicants, the median total publication count was 10 (IQR: 5–18), with 6 plastic surgery–specific publications (IQR: 2–12), 3 first-author publications (IQR: 1–5), and an H-index of 5 (IQR: 3–6). Most applicants had their first plastic surgery publication one year prior to the match (IQR: 0–2). General plastic surgery (67.4%) and education/nonclinical (50%) topics were the most represented subspecialties among applicants' research. Publications in craniofacial surgery (42.9%), microsurgery (29%), aesthetics (25%), gender-affirming surgery (17.9%), hand surgery (17.4%), peripheral nerve surgery (11.2%), and burn surgery (9.4%) were less common among applicants. Applicants most frequently published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open (240 publications), Annals of Plastic Surgery (213 publications), and the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery (196 publications). In multivariable analysis, no individual research metric independently predicted matching at a top 20 program, though the overall model demonstrated fair discriminative ability (AUC = 0.731). Conclusion Among matched plastic surgery applicants in the most recent 2024–2025 application cycle, research productivity was high with a wide variety of subspecialty interest.
Quick et al. (Mon,) studied this question.