Application Update - Submitted Publication?

[Curioso06]

I understand that there are varying opinions on whether a submitted publication is noteworthy enough to be included as an application update. However, I am more interested in whether it would be acceptable to send to adcoms (as an update) a copy of a submitted manuscript that has not yet completed the review process.

Some things I have considered:

1) I understand that a submitted publication is not considered to be as noteworthy as an accepted publication.

2) Despite this, I believe that sending a copy of the submitted manuscript to adcoms will show the very high quality of work that has led up to this submission (it has been submitted to a very high impact journal and if it's not accepted there, it will highly likely be accepted to another well-respected medical journal.)

3) Additionally, by sending the adcoms a copy, they can make their own judgments of the work (if they feel so inclined.)

4) My concern is that it may seem unprofessional to send a not-yet-accepted manuscript to the adcoms.

Any suggestions or insights are welcome and very much appreciated.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[md-2020]

I personally wouldn't bother updating adcoms on a submitted pub b/c that's like completely different from a published article (it's like applying to Harvard, not getting in). I wouldn't send them an actual manuscript as they won't read it and some schools say this is looked down upon (unless specifically requested).

 

[Goro]

NOT noteworthy.

Anyone can say they have a manuscript "submitted".

I understand that there are varying opinions on whether a submitted publication is noteworthy enough to be included as an application update. However, I am more interested in whether it would be acceptable to send to adcoms (as an update) a copy of a submitted manuscript that has not yet completed the review process.

Some things I have considered:

1) I understand that a submitted publication is not considered to be as noteworthy as an accepted publication.

2) Despite this, I believe that sending a copy of the submitted manuscript to adcoms will show the very high quality of work that has led up to this submission (it has been submitted to a very high impact journal and if it's not accepted there, it will highly likely be accepted to another well-respected medical journal.)

3) Additionally, by sending the adcoms a copy, they can make their own judgments of the work (if they feel so inclined.)

4) My concern is that it may seem unprofessional to send a not-yet-accepted manuscript to the adcoms.

Any suggestions or insights are welcome and very much appreciated.

 

[Curioso06]

I personally wouldn't bother updating adcoms on a submitted pub b/c that's like completely different from a published article (it's like applying to Harvard, not getting in). I wouldn't send them an actual manuscript as they won't read it and some schools say this is looked down upon (unless specifically requested).

NOT noteworthy.

Anyone can say they have a manuscript "submitted".

One caveat is that at the school interest, they claim that they are receptive to having an applicant send updates on submitted manuscripts. I won't necessarily take this at face value, but if that's what they claim, then I would like to believe they wouldn't penalize an applicant for doing such.

I would have to disagree that a submitted manuscript holds no weight at all. Obviously, it is not the same as a manuscript accepted for publication. However, generally, at the time of submission, there is a reasonable chance that the presented findings will be accepted for publication, depending on the journal. Nonetheless, a manuscript that has been submitted still demonstrates the hallmarks of high quality research. In other words, no PI is going to waste their time submitting work that will likely not be accepted for publication at all.

It would be highly presumptuous of you to do so and may get you as many "You got to be kidding me?" as "how interesting."

The only purpose of including the manuscript would be to demonstrate the quality of the work, i.e., to ensure that the manuscript is publishable and not something of very low quality. It hadn't even occurred to me that an adcom would find it arrogant that a candidate would send them such a document. It's interesting that you thought of it that way...

 

[Curioso06]

Anyone can submit a paper, anyone can write a quality paper, and anyone can presume that an adcom reader would have the time, energy or expertise to read it and make a judgement of its quality, especially during the somewhat frantic WL cascade. With so many high achieving applicants who apply, many who have been clearly at the top of the schools their entire lives, there is a tremendous amount of inappropriate arrogance instead of appropriate confidence. I see it all over primaries and secondaries, and it is one of things that can get you black balled no matter how good you are. Your idea to send in the paper and your subsequent comments here really read quite arrogant. Sending in a paper that has been submitted as a WL update is very presumptuous.

I personally believe that submitting a paper is an accomplishment, given the obstacles that exist to get to that stage. However, I'm not really concerned with debating whether a manuscript submission is or isn't noteworthy. Rather, I'm curious how including a copy of the manuscript would be perceived by the adcom.

May I ask why you find it arrogant to do such? As I had noted, the purpose is not to "show off", rather it is to demonstrate that the submitted paper has a reasonable chance of being submitted (at some journal) and to clear any doubt that it's a "sham" of a manuscript. I certainly don't think there's any guarantee of having a manuscript accepted for publication - I thought that was implied.

 

[trini818]

I personally believe that submitting a paper is an accomplishment, given the obstacles that exist to get to that stage. However, I'm not really concerned with debating whether a manuscript submission is or isn't noteworthy. Rather, I'm curious how including a copy of the manuscript would be perceived by the adcom.

May I ask why you find it arrogant to do such? As I had noted, the purpose is not to "show off", rather it is to demonstrate that the submitted paper has a reasonable chance of being submitted (at some journal) and to clear any doubt that it's a "sham" of a manuscript. I certainly don't think there's any guarantee of having a manuscript accepted for publication - I thought that was implied.

I can guarantee that the adcoms will not read the manuscript you send them.

 

[Curioso06]

Anyone can submit a paper, anyone can write a quality paper, and anyone can presume that an adcom reader would have the time, energy or expertise to read it and make a judgement of its quality, especially during the somewhat frantic WL cascade. With so many high achieving applicants who apply, many who have been clearly at the top of the schools their entire lives, there is a tremendous amount of inappropriate arrogance instead of appropriate confidence. I see it all over primaries and secondaries, and it is one of things that can get you black balled no matter how good you are. Your idea to send in the paper and your subsequent comments here really read quite arrogant. Sending in a paper that has been submitted as a WL update is very presumptuous.

I would also add that another reason why one might send a copy of the manuscript is to show that there actually was a manuscript that was even put together and submitted. Otherwise, candidates can claim that they've submitted manuscripts, when in fact they have not. In other words, one may believe that showing a copy of the actual manuscript would provide more credibility.

I can guarantee that the adcoms will not read the manuscript you send them.

I agree. A major reason for sending a copy of the manuscript is to show that one even existed (see my response above).

 

[Lawpy]

I would also add that another reason why one might send a copy of the manuscript is to show that there actually was a manuscript that was even put together and submitted. Otherwise, candidates can claim that they've submitted manuscripts, when in fact they have not. In other words, one may believe that showing a copy of the actual manuscript would provide more credibility.

You seem to be set on updating the schools with the submitted manuscript. Go ahead and give it a try. The recommendations provided by @Goro @gonnif @md-2020 and @trini818 can and will be useful for others reading this thread.

 

[Curioso06]

1) Sending an update about a proposal/possibility such as application submitted for a scribe position along with your fantastic resume would patently ridiculous.
Sending in an fantastic paper that you have recently submitted is the same thing
2) Getting such a paper as part of an update, is saying "see how great this is, see why you should let me in" as a young school boy would
3) Whether or not you state your motivation as to why submitted the actual paper, many will see it as showing off
4) It is presumptuous to assume that members of the adcom would have time to read or the expertise to evaluate it for any possible publication

If you had sent this in with a secondary for a research heavy school, it would have been seen as a bit over the top. As part of a late WL, its smacks of arrogance not accomplishment to me.

You seem to be set on updating the schools with the submitted manuscript. Go ahead and give it a try. The recommendations provided by @Goro @gonnif @md-2020 and @trini818 can and will be useful for others reading this thread.

What the dilemma boils down to is this:

Does the perceived credibility of sending a copy of the manuscript outweigh the perceived arrogance of sending a copy of the manuscript?

If I tell adcoms that I've submitted a manuscript, will they take my word at face value? In order to avoid potentially coming off as being arrogant, I can always offer to send a copy of the manuscript.

The only reason why it occurred to me that sending the actual manuscript would be a good idea is to add credibility to the claim that a manuscript was even submitted. After all, anyone can claim anything.

 

[Curioso06]

That is exactly right, and the assumption that updating an adcom on a submission, which is nothing more than speculative action, is really not worthy of an update. Sending in paper to prove it, just makes so arrogant

I disagree with this. Like I said before, I believe submitting a manuscript is an accomplishment and demonstrates several positive qualities. It's not the same as an accepted manuscript, but it isn't worth nothing.

Is putting together a paper and submitting it really less noteworthy than getting an "A" in Basket-weaving 101 (or some other non-rigorous, non-medically relevant subject)? The latter actually has some bearing in a candidate's application, despite its irrelevance to a career in medicine and lack of insight into the aptitude of the student. At least a submitted manuscript demonstrates that the candidate has proven to a group of peers (PIs, researchers) that his/her work is worthy of submission (and all of the time and energy that entails.) Just my 2 cents.

 

[CaliforniaDreamer]

I disagree with this. Like I said before, I believe submitting a manuscript is an accomplishment and demonstrates several positive qualities. It's not the same as an accepted manuscript, but it isn't worth nothing.

Is putting together a paper and submitting it really less noteworthy than getting an "A" in Basket-weaving 101 (or some other non-rigorous, non-medically relevant subject)? The latter actually has some bearing in a candidate's application, despite its irrelevance to a career in medicine and lack of insight into the aptitude of the student. At least a submitted manuscript demonstrates that the candidate has proven to a group of peers (PIs, researchers) that his/her work is worthy of submission (and all of the time and energy that entails.) Just my 2 cents.

I am not sure if anyone can give you an objective answer to the exact value of a "submitted" manuscript, but the opinions you have received above have come from some of the most reliable sources possible on this issue.

 

[MaxPlancker]

I just opened up MS Word…typed Yea! on it and can say I have submitted to NATURE!

If you have a track record of publications in similar quality journals, I think having a submitted manuscript can hold a small amount of weight. If you don't (which most undergrads don't), then it's has no value.

 

[DingoPingo]

I disagree with this. Like I said before, I believe submitting a manuscript is an accomplishment and demonstrates several positive qualities. It's not the same as an accepted manuscript, but it isn't worth nothing.

Is putting together a paper and submitting it really less noteworthy than getting an "A" in Basket-weaving 101 (or some other non-rigorous, non-medically relevant subject)? The latter actually has some bearing in a candidate's application, despite its irrelevance to a career in medicine and lack of insight into the aptitude of the student. At least a submitted manuscript demonstrates that the candidate has proven to a group of peers (PIs, researchers) that his/her work is worthy of submission (and all of the time and energy that entails.) Just my 2 cents.

Knowing how to weave a basket is probably more interesting to adcoms than a paper in submission.

It's not the adcom's job to look over your submission. Based on the content of your posts, you may be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Curioso06]

I just opened up MS Word…typed Yea! on it and can say I have submitted to NATURE!

If you have a track record of publications in similar quality journals, I think having a submitted manuscript can hold a small amount of weight. If you don't (which most undergrads don't), then it's has no value.

In fact, I do.

And regarding your example of the MS Word document submitted to Nature, sending a copy of the manuscript to adcoms would immediately show that your submission was a sham. (FYI, in journals such as Nature, the editor does a rapid "initial review" before even assigning reviewers. If your submission is of egregiously low quality, they would reject it in about 5 minutes!)

Hence, sending a copy of the manuscript would be one way to demonstrate the credibility of such a publication submission.

 

[MaxPlancker]

In fact, I do.

And regarding your example of the MS Word document submitted to Nature, sending a copy of the manuscript to adcoms would immediately show that your submission was a sham. (FYI, in journals such as Nature, the editor does a rapid "initial review" before even assigning reviewers. If your submission is of egregiously low quality, they would reject it in about 5 minutes!)

Hence, sending a copy of the manuscript would be one way to demonstrate the credibility of such a publication submission.

Not quite. Adcoms don't have the expertise in most cases to distinguish between a small thesis, a JBC paper, and a Nature paper for example. In fact, most probably aren't qualified to review a manuscript in your discipline nor do they have time to read your manuscript.

If I submit to Nature and submit my AMCAS thereafter, it isn't a lie that I have a submission to Nature. You can't change your AMCAS after submission even if you're rejected in 30 seconds if you've submitted the AMCAS. The point is, a manuscript that's been submitted has no quality assurance whatsoever.

If you have a track record, then you have enough pubs where adding one in submission could look desperate. There can be rare exceptional scenarios which you probably don't fall under. Also, track-record essentially means 1st author or corresponding author, not getting your name on random papers here and there. When you just have your name thrown on there, the quality of the paper and chances for acceptance are largely out of your control.

 

[JustAPhD]

Perhaps it's just me, but I wouldn't send a non-accepted manuscript out to strangers all willy-nilly. I'm not sure why you made this thread if you're not going to listen to any of the advice posted. Especially when such advice has come from the likes of Goro and Gonnif, two of the most respected users on SDN when it comes to admissions-related questions.

 

[mimelim]

In fact, I do.

And regarding your example of the MS Word document submitted to Nature, sending a copy of the manuscript to adcoms would immediately show that your submission was a sham. (FYI, in journals such as Nature, the editor does a rapid "initial review" before even assigning reviewers. If your submission is of egregiously low quality, they would reject it in about 5 minutes!)

Hence, sending a copy of the manuscript would be one way to demonstrate the credibility of such a publication submission.

People who have a track record of publications in quality journals don't need to list their submitted work because they already have a body of work for people to look at. If the article is not published, it does not exist. It is one thing to when describing a research experience to talk about submitted work. It is another to bring up submitted work that has not been accepted.

If you sent this kind of update to our committee, we would shrug our shoulders and move on. While it would be a complete non-issue for most of us, I certainly can think of specific members of our committee that would say as @gonnif put it, "Are you kidding me?" Also, at baseline, you should not be sending non-published results to anyone that is not PI approved. That can be in rare instances a very big problem, especially when people start stealing ideas/methods.

You can try to argue as much as you want with people that know this topic inside and out. At the end of the day, you can do whatever you want. 9 times out of 10 it will not affect anything. This has been asked multiple times here and discussed in admissions committees across the country. After 5+ years of being involved in admissions, I can not recount a single person that thought that it was a good idea (outside of pre-meds with submitted work of course).

 

[Curioso06]

Perhaps it's just me, but I wouldn't send a non-accepted manuscript out to strangers all willy-nilly.

Yes, this was one of my concerns. In the case that the manuscript is not accepted and takes longer than anticipated to re-submit, then the data is out there.

Not quite. Adcoms don't have the expertise in most cases to distinguish between a small thesis, a JBC paper, and a Nature paper for example. In fact, most probably aren't qualified to review a manuscript in your discipline nor do they have time to read your manuscript.

If I submit to Nature and submit my AMCAS thereafter, it isn't a lie that I have a submission to Nature. You can't change your AMCAS after submission even if you're rejected in 30 seconds if you've submitted the AMCAS. The point is, a manuscript that's been submitted has no quality assurance whatsoever.

If you have a track record, then you have enough pubs where adding one in submission could look desperate. There can be rare exceptional scenarios which you probably don't fall under. Also, track-record essentially means 1st author or corresponding author, not getting your name on random papers here and there. When you just have your name thrown on there, the quality of the paper and chances for acceptance are largely out of your control.

I think what you're describing here applies for much if not all ECs that are listed in the AMCAS. That is, it's largely based on faith that the applicant is telling the truth.

The point of submitting a copy of the manuscript to the adcoms is to demonstrate that one even exists, has reputable co-authors (some of whom the adcom may even know personally...)

Although the example you present is possible, it's extreme and would like not happen. Instead, there's this larger gray area where a manuscript hasn't actually even been submitted but is "in preparation" yet someone claims that it's been submitted. In academia, there's a distinction between "in preparation" and "submitted". The latter carries marginally more weight (since the former doesn't mean anything.)

Again, the purpose of submitting a copy of the submitted manuscript to adcoms is to show that a respectable one exists and has co-authors who can vouch for the validity of the work. I don't think this is unreasonable but some find it arrogant for other reasons. Just some food for thought.

 

[Curioso06]

People who have a track record of publications in quality journals don't need to list their submitted work because they already have a body of work for people to look at. If the article is not published, it does not exist. It is one thing to when describing a research experience to talk about submitted work. It is another to bring up submitted work that has not been accepted.

If you sent this kind of update to our committee, we would shrug our shoulders and move on. While it would be a complete non-issue for most of us, I certainly can think of specific members of our committee that would say as @gonnif put it, "Are you kidding me?" Also, at baseline, you should not be sending non-published results to anyone that is not PI approved. That can be in rare instances a very big problem, especially when people start stealing ideas/methods.

You can try to argue as much as you want with people that know this topic inside and out. At the end of the day, you can do whatever you want. 9 times out of 10 it will not affect anything. This has been asked multiple times here and discussed in admissions committees across the country. After 5+ years of being involved in admissions, I can not recount a single person that thought that it was a good idea (outside of pre-meds with submitted work of course).

After having thought about it more carefully, I agree with what you're saying that a copy of the manuscript should not be sent to adcoms.

However, I still believe that (considering what a manuscript submission entails) a submitted manuscript is a more noteworthy accomplishment than many other aspects of the med school application that are "acceptable" by adcoms (e.g., an "A" in Basket-weaving 101).

Yes, in all likelihood, a submitted manuscript by itself will not turn the tides.

 

[trini818]

Just to put another perspective on this, I have a first author paper for which I am also the corresponding author. It has gone through peer review, but has not officially been accepted yet because I needed to clarify some wording in the declarations section. It is basically an editorial or formatting change, which has nothing to do with the science. If I were sending updates, I would not even mention this paper or send them a copy.

 

[MaxPlancker]

Yes, this was one of my concerns. In the case that the manuscript is not accepted and takes longer than anticipated to re-submit, then the data is out there.



I think what you're describing here applies for much if not all ECs that are listed in the AMCAS. That is, it's largely based on faith that the applicant is telling the truth.

The point of submitting a copy of the manuscript to the adcoms is to demonstrate that one even exists, has reputable co-authors (some of whom the adcom may even know personally...)

Although the example you present is possible, it's extreme and would like not happen. Instead, there's this larger gray area where a manuscript hasn't actually even been submitted but is "in preparation" yet someone claims that it's been submitted. In academia, there's a distinction between "in preparation" and "submitted". The latter carries marginally more weight (since the former doesn't mean anything.)

Again, the purpose of submitting a copy of the submitted manuscript to adcoms is to show that a respectable one exists and has co-authors who can vouch for the validity of the work. I don't think this is unreasonable but some find it arrogant for other reasons. Just some food for thought.

If your goal is to demonstrate that one exists, then the best is to have your PI mention it in the LOR…and yes I know you're thinking Oh but I'm talking updates…well people do send in LORs as updates…is it advisable for a submission? Probs not. The extreme example(s) are to just show you how meaningless a submission is. To put things in perspective, I had a first author basic science as an undergrad in a good journal with a reputed PI…it took me over a year from submission to publication. Should I be given any bonus for submitting mine a few months before someone else, if we're published around the same time? Can't you see there's no good way for adcoms to go about evaluating a submission? If submissions counted for something, I could prepare a legit one minus an experiment or a few revisions and submit a few months early just so I get the same "bonus" as someone else would. After all, I could just tack on an additional experiment when the reviews come back… Or how do you account for someone who genuinely doesn't think about an experiment before reviews come back and submits earlier than Person B?

tldr; there's no good way to evaluate a submission and consider it meritorious of "extra points" in admissions

 

[MaxPlancker]

After having thought about it more carefully, I agree with what you're saying that a copy of the manuscript should not be sent to adcoms.

However, I still believe that (considering what a manuscript submission entails) a submitted manuscript is a more noteworthy accomplishment than many other aspects of the med school application that are "acceptable" by adcoms (e.g., an "A" in Basket-weaving 101).

Yes, in all likelihood, a submitted manuscript by itself will not turn the tides.

Publishing is a marathon. A submission is like trying to earn points for running half a marathon when you have half left. If you sign up for a marathon, and only go part way, it's not a noteworthy accomplishment.

 

[Goro]

Because you can write something in crayon on a brown paper bag, send it to Nature, and honestly say " submitted to Nature".

There's a reason why NIH doesn't let you put "submitted" in your NIH biosketches whenyou apply for grants.

I personally believe that submitting a paper is an accomplishment, given the obstacles that exist to get to that stage. However, I'm not really concerned with debating whether a manuscript submission is or isn't noteworthy. Rather, I'm curious how including a copy of the manuscript would be perceived by the adcom.

May I ask why you find it arrogant to do such? As I had noted, the purpose is not to "show off", rather it is to demonstrate that the submitted paper has a reasonable chance of being submitted (at some journal) and to clear any doubt that it's a "sham" of a manuscript. I certainly don't think there's any guarantee of having a manuscript accepted for publication - I thought that was implied.

 

[Curioso06]

Publishing is a marathon. A submission is like trying to earn points for running half a marathon when you have half left. If you sign up for a marathon, and only go part way, it's not a noteworthy accomplishment.

I didn't disagree that an accepted publication is different from a submitted one. Instead, I'm trying to understand how different aspects of the application can be "more or less" important than other ones. My question is, why is getting an "A" in Basket-weaving 101 more meritorious than executing/troubleshooting complex experiments, scouring the literature to solve novel problems, and putting together a manuscript of sufficiently high quality (at least by the standards of several reputable PIs who are co-authors)? The former has some bearing (although little) in the med school application. The latter allegedly has no bearing at all.

I'm curious as to how one can rationalize this. Obviously, "anyone can submit anything to Nature", but in reality, that doesn't happen, so that argument is not very insightful at all. Also, applying for grants (asking people to give you millions of dollars) is a vastly differently situation from applying to med school.

In short, I agree with some of the sentiment expressed here but am still left wondering about some of the things I mentioned above. Some sort of direct response to those questions would be helpful.

 

[JustAPhD]

I didn't disagree that an accepted publication is different from a submitted one. Instead, I'm trying to understand how different aspects of the application can be "more or less" important than other ones. My question is, why is getting an "A" in Basket-weaving 101 more meritorious than executing/troubleshooting complex experiments, scouring the literature to solve novel problems, and putting together a manuscript of sufficiently high quality (at least by the standards of several reputable PIs who are co-authors)? The former has some bearing (although little) in the med school application. The latter allegedly has no bearing at all.

I'm curious as to how one can rationalize this. Obviously, "anyone can submit anything to Nature", but in reality, that doesn't happen, so that argument is not very insightful at all. Also, applying for grants (asking people to give you millions of dollars) is a vastly differently situation from applying to med school.

In short, I agree with some of the sentiment expressed here but am still left wondering about some of the things I mentioned above. Some sort of direct response to those questions would be helpful.

Because, as I'm sure you are aware, all of that means absolutely nothing until it is published. Your experimental design, data, and conclusions drawn from it could be complete rubbish for all we know. Not saying they are at all, but we don't know---and that's the point. An adcom member is not going to read through your manuscript to judge if it's actually worthwhile; nor do they have the time to do it.

 

[Goro]

Because if it's not in press or published, you didn't do it. A submitted manuscript doesn't exist.

I didn't disagree that an accepted publication is different from a submitted one. Instead, I'm trying to understand how different aspects of the application can be "more or less" important than other ones. My question is, why is getting an "A" in Basket-weaving 101 more meritorious than executing/troubleshooting complex experiments, scouring the literature to solve novel problems, and putting together a manuscript of sufficiently high quality (at least by the standards of several reputable PIs who are co-authors)? The former has some bearing (although little) in the med school application. The latter allegedly has no bearing at all.

I'm curious as to how one can rationalize this. Obviously, "anyone can submit anything to Nature", but in reality, that doesn't happen, so that argument is not very insightful at all. Also, applying for grants (asking people to give you millions of dollars) is a vastly differently situation from applying to med school.

In short, I agree with some of the sentiment expressed here but am still left wondering about some of the things I mentioned above. Some sort of direct response to those questions would be helpful.

 

[Curioso06]

Not meaning to offend, can I suggest that your repeated insistence here over opinions to the contrary, is in fact a top student believing in something so much, how important and powerful this paper can be to your admissions, that you will send a paper under submission for the adcom to see, is exactly what I mean when I say that overly confident, high-achievers often come off as arrogant

After thinking about it more carefully, I think what would be more prudent is NOT to send the manuscript to adcoms but instead offer to send a copy, should it be requested.

I don't disagree that one way (of many) that an adcom may view a candidate's manuscript is arrogance. I presented an alternative (and in my opinion, another reasonable) explanation for the motivations of why such a candidate may send such a manuscript. I can now see how adcoms may immediately jump to certain conclusions that may or may not be actual intentions of the candidate.

To repeat, I am NOT going to send the manuscript, instead I will offer to send it, if it's requested.

I'm still curious how a submitted publication is "worth" less than an "A" in Basket-weaving 101 in med school admissions. 😉

 

[Pagan FutureDoc]

An A in basket weaving 101 is an accomplished task
Submitting a manuscript is not the end goal, it's a step towards the middle.

What your proposing is like sending an update letter for your midterm grades.

 

[mistafab]

I'm still curious how a submitted publication is "worth" less than an "A" in Basket-weaving 101 in med school admissions. 😉

It is like if on the way to getting into medical school, you go around and brag that you've "applied to schools" when people already know you are trying to get into medical school.

You haven't done anything. They already knew you were working on a project, don't update them with information that you are, in fact, still working on that project. A submitted pub is worth zero more than any research activity already stated.

Edit: Just want to add in an additional comment here. If you get a revise & resubmit from the journal, then maybe you could update them with that info.

 

[Curioso06]

An A in basket weaving 101 is an accomplished task
Submitting a manuscript is not the end goal, it's a step towards the middle.

What your proposing is like sending an update letter for your midterm grades.

It is like if on the way to getting into medical school, you go around and brag that you've "applied to schools" when people already know you are trying to get into medical school.

You haven't done anything. They already knew you were working on a project, don't update them with information that you are, in fact, still working on that project. A submitted pub is worth zero more than any research activity already stated.

I don't disagree that the submission of a manuscript doesn't end there. Instead, I'm arguing that the merit of a manuscript submission versus other types of "accomplishments" that are "acceptable" by adcoms.

For example, presenting a poster at a conference is generally viewed as an "accomplishment", at least according to AMCAS standards.

However, the amount of work required to present a poster is generally much less than that for publication submission.

Is there more merit in a poster presentation than a publication submission?

 

[mistafab]

Yes, there is. A poster presentation means an abstract was submitted, and was deemed worthy enough to be presented at a conference. A submitted publication has not been reviewed yet. The worthiness of a submitted pub has yet to be determined.

I could send a single paragraph containing only "ASDFASDFASDF" to Nature and it would be a submitted manuscript to Nature.

Is there more merit in a poster presentation than a publication submission?

 

[MaxPlancker]

I didn't disagree that an accepted publication is different from a submitted one. Instead, I'm trying to understand how different aspects of the application can be "more or less" important than other ones. My question is, why is getting an "A" in Basket-weaving 101 more meritorious than executing/troubleshooting complex experiments, scouring the literature to solve novel problems, and putting together a manuscript of sufficiently high quality (at least by the standards of several reputable PIs who are co-authors)? The former has some bearing (although little) in the med school application. The latter allegedly has no bearing at all.

I'm curious as to how one can rationalize this. Obviously, "anyone can submit anything to Nature", but in reality, that doesn't happen, so that argument is not very insightful at all. Also, applying for grants (asking people to give you millions of dollars) is a vastly differently situation from applying to med school.

In short, I agree with some of the sentiment expressed here but am still left wondering about some of the things I mentioned above. Some sort of direct response to those questions would be helpful.

Yes, we get it…you want recognition for the hard work you put into research as an undergrad…but that's just not possible with manuscript submissions. Maybe if you could answer the questions I posed in my previous post to you, then adcoms could have a method of giving "points" to manuscript submissions. But you can't come up with a good answer, nobody can.

To reiterate:

To put things in perspective, I had a first author basic science as an undergrad in a good journal with a reputed PI…it took me over a year from submission to publication. Should I be given any bonus for submitting mine a few months before someone else, if we're published around the same time? Can't you see there's no good way for adcoms to go about evaluating a submission? If submissions counted for something, I could prepare a legit one minus an experiment or a few revisions and submit a few months early just so I get the same "bonus" as someone else would. After all, I could just tack on an additional experiment when the reviews come back… Or how do you account for someone who genuinely doesn't think about an experiment before reviews come back and submits earlier than Person B?


As some advice, it's always a good idea in life, whether a pre-med or in other aspects of life, to have short-term and long-term plans for productivity. Yes, if you can get a publication then that's worth a LOT more than an A in basket weaving. The catch is, if you get a pub. Why is the worth so much more? For some people, an A in basket weaving could be harder than science! Because generally, the amount of time required for science is much greater. THINK ABOUT ALL THE ECS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE WEIGHTS. THERE IS A CORRELATION BETWEEN TIME REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE AND DEGREE OF MERIT RECEIVED. By choosing science, you choose "go big or go home" (yea you have biscuits like posters along the way…).

 

[premed626]

If your goal is to demonstrate that one exists, then the best is to have your PI mention it in the LOR…and yes I know you're thinking Oh but I'm talking updates…well people do send in LORs as updates…is it advisable for a submission? Probs not. The extreme example(s) are to just show you how meaningless a submission is. To put things in perspective, I had a first author basic science as an undergrad in a good journal with a reputed PI…it took me over a year from submission to publication. Should I be given any bonus for submitting mine a few months before someone else, if we're published around the same time? Can't you see there's no good way for adcoms to go about evaluating a submission? If submissions counted for something, I could prepare a legit one minus an experiment or a few revisions and submit a few months early just so I get the same "bonus" as someone else would. After all, I could just tack on an additional experiment when the reviews come back… Or how do you account for someone who genuinely doesn't think about an experiment before reviews come back and submits earlier than Person B?

good point

 

[HotGlueGun1]

Would it be okay to mention a submitted manuscript in the description of the research lab entry? Something like "Due to my contribution to this project I am a co-author on a manuscript currently submitted to journal of..." Or should we just leave it out all together.