Application timing and publications

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

kiwifriend

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
143
Reaction score
41
Thanks!!

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You can always label it as "Submitted" and then update it later. That's what I did.
 
You can always label it as "Submitted" and then update it later. That's what I did.

Thanks for the reply!
Wouldn't that then be awkward if it is rejected though? Would that be somehow worse than not mentioning it at all?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Thanks for the reply!
Wouldn't that then be awkward if it is rejected though? Would that be somehow worse than not mentioning it at all?

If it's rejected you don't have to update it. But you put in a lot of work and effort (I assume) to prepare a manuscript and make it ready to be submitted. That seems like something that shouldn't be left off an application. But that's just my personal opinion! Wait to see what others say!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If it's rejected you don't have to update it. But you put in a lot of work and effort (I assume) to prepare a manuscript and make it ready to be submitted. That seems like something that shouldn't be left off an application. But that's just my personal opinion! Wait to see what others say!

I suppose I am just worried about being asked about it in interviews and then having to say it was rejected. But I do think that it would be important to mention it on my app because I did put a lot of work into it.
 
Don't delay your AMCAS. There is no guarantee of acceptance and updates are always nice. Also, FYI reviews are not as impressive as actual research that's been performed.
 
Don't wait. After the initial review, it is highly likely that they won't accept it outright anyway. You'll be asked to perform either "minor" or "major" revisions, which may even involve a de novo re-submission depending on the journal. Just because it is a review doesn't mean it gets a first-pass accept vs. reject decision. If that is the case, then you'll have to make the changes or explain why you can't in a detailed response document, and then resubmit, and then it goes back to the reviewers for another round. This all takes time.

By the way, an 8 week turnaround for an initial review is weak.

Finally, getting rejected is part of the game. It happens to everybody. You'd be surprised how many articles are submitted to Science, get rejected, and then appear in Nature. Those are very high level articles! If it get's rejected, it's not like you're going to bag it and move on -- you'll resubmit somewhere else. Hence, your initial annotation of the manuscript as "in submission" or "under review" will still be true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Don't delay your AMCAS. There is no guarantee of acceptance and updates are always nice. Also, FYI reviews are not as impressive as actual research that's been performed.

Thanks for the response! Yeah, I know reviews aren't as impressive, but unfortunately the study I'm working on won't finish up until January, so although I will be an author on that paper, it will be too late for my application. We decided to write up a review because we had to get background for other projects we are working on anyway.

I'm a little worried if it would be annoying of me to send an update just for this one publication, especially if it is not considered particularly impressive.
 
Last edited:
Don't wait. After the initial review, it is highly likely that they won't accept it outright anyway. You'll be asked to perform either "minor" or "major" revisions, which may even involve a de novo re-submission depending on the journal. Just because it is a review doesn't mean it gets a first-pass accept vs. reject decision. If that is the case, then you'll have to make the changes or explain why you can't in a detailed response document, and then resubmit, and then it goes back to the reviewers for another round. This all takes time.

By the way, an 8 week turnaround for an initial review is weak.

Finally, getting rejected is part of the game. It happens to everybody. You'd be surprised how many articles are submitted to Science, get rejected, and then appear in Nature. Those are very high level articles! If it get's rejected, it's not like you're going to bag it and move on -- you'll resubmit somewhere else. Hence, your initial annotation of the manuscript as "in submission" or "under review" will still be true.

Thank you so much for your input! I definitely know not to get my hopes up on getting accepted the first time around (my PI definitely prepped me for potential failure - she's had a few articles be rejected by journals only to get accepted by more prestigious ones later). I guess I thought that I would have to note which journal it was submitted to in my application and I was worried about how to explain a rejection.

What do you mean by 8 weeks is weak? I was sort of expecting 4-5 weeks - is that more typical?
 
4 weeks is a reasonable turnaround. And I would not mention the journal you've submitted to. That is not convention, and it benefits you not to. Otherwise, everyone could just submit to NEJM and put that on their application.
 
Thanks for the response! Yeah, I know reviews aren't as impressive, but unfortunately the study I'm working on won't finish up until January, so although I will be an author on that paper, it will be too late for my application. We decided to write up a review because we had to get background for other projects we are working on anyway.

I'm a little worried if it would be annoying of me to send an update just for this one publication, especially if it is not considered particularly impressive.
Well a first author review WOULD be impressive if you got it into a journal indexed on Pubmed. Just not as impressive as direct scientific research.
 
Thanks for the responses, everyone! I will definitely not wait to submit AMCAS!

Would I include the submitted manuscript under the umbrella of my clinical research coordinator position on the activities section or would this get it's own listing under Publications? My guess is that it shouldn't be listed on its own because it hasn't been accepted yet and that could look weak.
 
Yes, include it with the CRC position. Shouldn't get its own listing because it hasn't happened yet.

For what it's worth, I had the exact same dilemma last year. I submitted a first author manuscript in May and considered delaying my AMCAS because the journal had a supposed two week turnaround. Got good advice not to delay, so I sent in AMCAS with the paper in my research assistant description. I then updated everywhere when it was accepted, and I got a couple interviews right afterwards (maybe coincidence, who knows).

As an anecdote of how these things go, the journal we submitted to took nearly three months to get back to us and wanted some pretty big revisions, which took another month to do. After resubmission, the journal (with a supposed two week turnaround!) again took three months to accept with minor revisions, and the article was published in print yesterday. So, six months to acceptance, about 11.5 months to publication for a paper whose initial version is extremely similar to its published version.

tl;dr publications take way longer than you expect. Updates are good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yes, include it with the CRC position. Shouldn't get its own listing because it hasn't happened yet.

For what it's worth, I had the exact same dilemma last year. I submitted a first author manuscript in May and considered delaying my AMCAS because the journal had a supposed two week turnaround. Got good advice not to delay, so I sent in AMCAS with the paper in my research assistant description. I then updated everywhere when it was accepted, and I got a couple interviews right afterwards (maybe coincidence, who knows).

As an anecdote of how these things go, the journal we submitted to took nearly three months to get back to us and wanted some pretty big revisions, which took another month to do. After resubmission, the journal (with a supposed two week turnaround!) again took three months to accept with minor revisions, and the article was published in print yesterday. So, six months to acceptance, about 11.5 months to publication for a paper whose initial version is extremely similar to its published version.

tl;dr publications take way longer than you expect. Updates are good.

Wow that's crazy!! So good you didn't decide to wait!!

Potentially stupid question, but how did you list the paper? Obviously since it hasn't been accepted yet, there's no journal or publication date so did you write something like this? Author 1, Author 2, Author 3. Title of the paper. (Submitted April 2016)
 
Wow that's crazy!! So good you didn't decide to wait!!

Potentially stupid question, but how did you list the paper? Obviously since it hasn't been accepted yet, there's no journal or publication date so did you write something like this? Author 1, Author 2, Author 3. Title of the paper. (Submitted April 2016)

I think I wrote something along the lines of "My work in this lab has resulted in one first author manuscript submitted and currently under review as well as XX other things." 700 characters is not many, if you start listing titles and all that you'll run out very quickly. Hope that's helpful!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think I wrote something along the lines of "My work in this lab has resulted in one first author manuscript submitted and currently under review as well as XX other things." 700 characters is not many, if you start listing titles and all that you'll run out very quickly. Hope that's helpful!

I have a little more room because I plan to make it one of my most meaningful experiences, but I will probably still write something similar to that. Thank you!
 
Top