D
deleted964510
Last edited by a moderator:
You are correct. First co-authors.So my name is first on the publication, as a first author, and the name of another contributor is right after mine with an * denoting that we contributed equally. I saw some threads here saying there can only be 1 first author, but this has to mean we're first co-authors right? Ik it doesn't matter but I don't want to present it inaccurately
Almost no difference or is the difference?And being first author makes almost difference in admissions
I mentioned on my primary that I had submitted a manuscript. I know this doesn't carry the same weight as a publication, but is it still wise that I mentioned it?Almost NO difference
Either you have a pub or not
It won't hurt, but it won't help. You could submit your shopping list written in crayon on a brown paper bag to Nature and it's still "Manuscript submitted"I mentioned on my primary that I had submitted a manuscript. I know this doesn't carry the same weight as a publication, but is it still wise that I mentioned it?
This is not a universal opinion. It may be med school dependent, as all schools don't give the same weight to research involvement.Almost NO difference
Either you have a pub or not
The last author may also have invested a significant amount of effort, but the first author is generally more involved in the creative process, and has a better overall view of the project. These levels of involvement tend to provide more luster to the research endeavor.it doesn't totally make sense in terms of effort.
I did put it in context ha. I wasn't just like, "yo, I sent in a random manuscript." It's the research project I've been working on for a while and it was accepted to a conference...bahumbug 🙁It won't hurt, but it won't help. You could submit your shopping list written in crayon on a brown paper bag to Nature and it's still "Manuscript submitted"