BackgroundThe Plastic Surgery Common Application (PSCA) was introduced in the 2020–2021 integrated plastic surgery match cycle. We investigated the accuracy of medical student–reported quantitative metrics in the PSCA.MethodsQuantifiable data from 1 year of PSCA applications were compared between matched and unmatched students. Discrepancies were identified by reviewing publicly available data and from Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) applications.ResultsA total of 330 PSCAs were analyzed and divided into two groups: matched (n = 196) and unmatched (n = 134). Of the 71 medical schools with multiple applicants, 23.9% (17/71) and 31.0% (22/71) had contradicting reports of Alpha Omega Alpha and Gold Humanism Honor Society availability. Three matched applicants, with an average numeric Step 1 score of 228, reported scores as “pass.” Four applicants did not disclose a prior failing Step 1 score. More matched students had research discrepancies than unmatched students for first author (56%, 111/196; 50%, 67/132; P = 0.24) and total publications (66.8%, 131/196; 53%, 71/134; P = 0.011). The mean discrepancy number between matched and unmatched students was similar for first author (3.0 vs 3.2, P = 0.61) and total publications (4.3 vs 4.5, P = 0.61). Reasons for discrepancies included counting accepted articles (20.2%), submitted articles (7.5%), non–peer reviewed (3.1%) articles, and other endeavors (6.2%) in publication counts, with 52% of applicants having multiple reasons for discrepancies.ConclusionsMatched and unmatched applicants applying to plastic surgery had honor society and Step 1 score discrepancies, and inaccurate research reporting. NBME score verification and PubMed indexing may be a warranted addition to PSCA applications to guarantee application consistency.