Is it bad form to list publications under peer review in ERAS CV?

[lucid_interval]

Submitted, under peer review, but not accepted yet.

Wondering if it will look bad on me,
whereas I have many quality papers under peer review now, and it will be a waste not to list them.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[gro2001]

Submitted, under peer review, but not accepted yet.

Wondering if it will look bad on me,
whereas I have many quality papers under peer review now, and it will be a waste not to list them.

I would not list a publication I've merely submitted but that has not been accepted. At this stage you don't even know if it will be accepted. It might get rejected by this and every other journal and never see the light of day. Hopefully you'll have better luck than that, but that's in the future. Once it's been accepted you can call it "in press" and list it as such.

 

[DocRPP]

I would not list a publication I've merely submitted but that has not been accepted. At this stage you don't even know if it will be accepted. It might get rejected by this and every other journal and never see the light of day. Hopefully you'll have better luck than that, but that's in the future. Once it's been accepted you can call it "in press" and list it as such.

In ERAS, for articles that are not published, there are four options we can choose from a drop-down menu: Submitted, Provisionally Accepted, Accepted, and In-Press. I think the question stems from the fact that there is an option to list submitted articles, and how someone would look at an application that has a number of such listings. I am curious to know this as well.

 

[random122893]

If they listed it as an option - then what would be wrong with using it? It's to help people who have a bunch of pending research so they get credit for work they're doing. It's one thing to say it's pending to some no-name online publication, but if it's pending to a top journal that implies you are performing research at the level that could be capable of getting submitted there.

I'd list them.

 

[gamerEMdoc]

Id list them. People do all the time. There is no downside, even if its not published its still scholarly work you helped on.

The only time it would be a problem is if you misrepresented yourself. Like calling something a publication if it wasn’t published. But if you clearly stated it submitted for publication, I see no downside in listing it.

 

[gro2001]

In ERAS, for articles that are not published, there are four options we can choose from a drop-down menu: Submitted, Provisionally Accepted, Accepted, and In-Press. I think the question stems from the fact that there is an option to list submitted articles, and how someone would look at an application that has a number of such listings. I am curious to know this as well.

Ah, did not realize that. Thanks for pointing that out.

In that case I would list them. It's an accurate reflection of the work an applicant did. And people who publish will know that the timeline for papers is often quite long. For me it seems like about 8 months on average from initial submission to publication.

Either way, it's probably not going to make a big difference. Maybe a talking point on the interview if someone asks about a title that caught their eye.