Charting the Outcomes 2020 is Out!

[IMGASMD]

Pretty sure this is the norm for the most competitive specialties.

Never ever heard of people counting presentations given during rotations. People usually say that those don't count.

If it’s a grand round, I can buy it. If it’s a topic that your resident assigned you, then I’d have oral presentation in IM, Surg, Psych, Neuro, FM, Peds, radiology, PMNR, obgyn.... wow, should have included all those.

Let me add those to my CV now.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Taddy Mason]

Pretty sure this is the norm for the most competitive specialties.

Never ever heard of people counting presentations given during rotations. People usually say that those don't count.

It happens. I was aware of a number of my med school classmates who did it, and now being on the other side of the table with residency applications I see it happen way more than it should. You'd be surprised at the number of individuals who will even include TBL/PBL presentations from M1 and M2....

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

You'd be surprised at the number of individuals who will even include TBL/PBL presentations from M1 and M2....

Man I'd have like 50 presentations now

 

[efle]

I've read or been involved with multiple projects that quantified the actual number of peer-reviewed papers for the cohorts matching into competitive fields like Ortho, ENT, Neurosurg, Plastics. Can confirm it's overwhelmingly fluff (potential exception for top-tier programs like @WedgeDawg)

For example here is neurosurg:

The Neurosurgery Match: A Bibliometric Analysis of 206 First-Year Residents - PubMed

H-index is a powerful research predictor of matching into neurosurgical research institutions and can be improved by starting research early, targeting high impact journals, and participating in original clinical and laboratory investigations.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Findings included the following medians(IQRs):

Peer-reviewed Publications per person (including case reports and reviews): 1.5 (0-5)
Median journal impact factor: 1.7 (0-2.9)
Median H-index: 1 (0-2)
Frequency of first authorship on pubs: 36%

Average ERAS research entries is now 24, and yet their name is on only 1.5 actual peer-reviewed pubs, usually as middle author, and usually receiving 1-2 citations. A full quarter of matched people with a big fat 0.

I just can't even comprehend how this is continuing to happen, surely academic neurosurgeon PDs aren't being fooled and rewarding these CV games?

 

[slowthai]

It happens. I was aware of a number of my med school classmates who did it, and now being on the other side of the table with residency applications I see it happen way more than it should. You'd be surprised at the number of individuals who will even include TBL/PBL presentations from M1 and M2....

Just when I thought it couldn't get any stupider

 

[7331poas]

I've read or been involved with multiple projects that quantified the actual number of peer-reviewed papers for the cohorts matching into competitive fields like Ortho, ENT, Neurosurg, Plastics. Can confirm it's overwhelmingly fluff (potential exception for top-tier programs like @WedgeDawg)

For example here is neurosurg:

The Neurosurgery Match: A Bibliometric Analysis of 206 First-Year Residents - PubMed

H-index is a powerful research predictor of matching into neurosurgical research institutions and can be improved by starting research early, targeting high impact journals, and participating in original clinical and laboratory investigations.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Findings included the following medians(IQRs):

Peer-reviewed Publications per person (including case reports and reviews): 1.5 (0-5)
Median journal impact factor: 1.7 (0-2.9)
Median H-index: 1 (0-2)
Frequency of first authorship on pubs: 36%

Average ERAS research entries is now 24, and yet their name is on only 1.5 actual peer-reviewed pubs, usually as middle author, and usually receiving 1-2 citations. A full quarter of matched people with a big fat 0.

I just can't even comprehend how this is continuing to happen, surely academic neurosurgeon PDs aren't being fooled and rewarding these CV games?

Thats interesting. The spreadsheet definitely tells a different story. The average there is around 6 manuscripts.

 

[slowthai]

I’m putting an oral presentation, published abstract, and published manuscript from a single project separately on my ERAS. This is pretty standard I think, given that these are all different things that were done/ published independently. If this weren’t the case why would eras differentiate into these categories?

Yeah, I don't really see anything wrong with it, personally. Like what are you gonna do, not include it? Lol. But it's a problem when people are doing the ridiculous stuff mentioned a few posts back.

 

[efle]

Thats interesting. The spreadsheet definitely tells a different story. The average there is around 6 manuscripts.

Much like SDN having an average MCAT of 36 and average Step of 250, the spreadsheet contributors are a very self-selected group. The methods were fairly airtight - literally searching up every single matched person's profile on Scopus/pubmed and manually tallying up their involvement. So trust the papers. Despite listing 20-25 entries on ERAS, the average person in these fields has involvement on only 1-2 projects that result in anything published, and usually ran 0 of their own.

 

[efle]

I’m putting an oral presentation, published abstract, and published manuscript from a single project separately on my ERAS. This is pretty standard I think, given that these are all different things that were done/ published independently. If this weren’t the case why would eras differentiate into these categories?

Yeah, I don't really see anything wrong with it, personally. Like what are you gonna do, not include it? Lol. But it's a problem when people are doing the ridiculous stuff mentioned a few posts back.

The problem is that it obfuscates the glance value of a CV. The norm in academia is to only list the highest level something reached - e.g. if something was a poster and then an abstract and then a paper, you'd only list the paper.

I know some people are out there presenting the same data at multiple conferences under slightly changed names just to rack up more and more poster entries, and will then double or triple list when it also gets an abstract or finally publishes.

That is clearly problematic. Someone with involvement in 2-3 projects resulting in a couple middle-authorships should not have a 30-item research CV.

 

[slowthai]

Much like SDN having an average MCAT of 36 and average Step of 250, the spreadsheet contributors are a very self-selected group. The methods were fairly airtight - literally searching up every single matched person's profile on Scopus/pubmed and manually tallying up their involvement. So trust the papers. Despite listing 20-25 entries on ERAS, the average person in these fields has involvement on only 1-2 projects that result in anything published, and usually ran 0 of their own.

They're basically spamming the same 1-2 pubs everywhere to get that 20+ count, lol

 

[Dwan]

I’m putting an oral presentation, published abstract, and published manuscript from a single project separately on my ERAS. This is pretty standard I think, given that these are all different things that were done/ published independently. If this weren’t the case why would eras differentiate into these categories?

If you have a decent research CV, I wouldn't double dip on both the oral and the abstract. The oral is more "prestigious" (oral> poster> abstract) and any oral/poster at a major conference is automatically published in a corresponding abstract (PDs know this, as they attend these conferences themselves). However, at some conferences, the lesser rated projects are only published as an abstract without being given a poster/oral. That being said, you are correct in that people do count their posters a billion times, but you don't want yours to be labeled as fluff like theirs, if you have legitimate items worth looking at. As for why ERAS does this, I have no idea, I assume it was not made by people experienced in research.

 

[odyssey2]

The surgical subspecialties were especially brutal this year.

Derm only the 8th most selective specialty by match rates for US MD seniors! I think it says more about how much harder other specialties got.

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

The norm in academia is to only list the highest level something reached - e.g. if something was a poster and then an abstract and then a paper, you'd only list the paper.

I'm not sure this is totally true, though it's likely highly field and stage-of-training dependent. I've done some posters/presentations from projects that did go on to produce a paper, but the exact info covered in the presentation and the paper weren't always the same (sometimes from different timepoints in the ongoing project) - I've always been advised to list both on my CV as a student/trainee. However, it is true that in most fields once you become more established, poster presentations are no longer really CV worthy - most big research people I've worked with just list published manuscripts and invited (or otherwise significant) oral presentations on their CVs

I absolutely don't understand double dipping between the abstract and the poster/presentation from the same conference though. I understand that some abstracts are published in journal supplements, but if it's all the same submission process there is no reason you should get to list it twice.

 

[slowthai]

The problem is that it obfuscates the glance value of a CV. The norm in academia is to only list the highest level something reached - e.g. if something was a poster and then an abstract and then a paper, you'd only list the paper.

I know some people are out there presenting the same data at multiple conferences under slightly changed names just to rack up more and more poster entries, and will then double or triple list when it also gets an abstract or finally publishes.

That is clearly problematic. Someone with involvement in 2-3 projects resulting in a couple middle-authorships should not have a 30-item research CV.

That's a good point. We all know that quantity is largely more important than quality here as far as manuscripts go, but how do PDs evaluate non-manuscript pubs like posters, presentations, and abstracts? I've never really seen this discussed before.

 

[Dwan]

Much like SDN having an average MCAT of 36 and average Step of 250, the spreadsheet contributors are a very self-selected group. The methods were fairly airtight - literally searching up every single matched person's profile on Scopus/pubmed and manually tallying up their involvement. So trust the papers. Despite listing 20-25 entries on ERAS, the average person in these fields has involvement on only 1-2 projects that result in anything published, and usually ran 0 of their own.

Pubmed indexing is not even a particularly strict criteria, as there are many bad journals that will accept nearly anything, but are Pubmed indexed. Yet this restriction alone cuts out 90% of the fluff. Hence why as long as you have many Pubmed indexed papers, you are still a top applicant in terms of research, even if the publications are fluff. (and someone with 10 Pubmed publications likely has a crazy 30+ number count on ERAS). Of course, it's not expected or reasonable for a med student to have many high quality publications, but the game played with these numbers can be ridiculous, and those who don't understand the context can be very intimidated/discouraged.

 

[Neopolymath]

I've read or been involved with multiple projects that quantified the actual number of peer-reviewed papers for the cohorts matching into competitive fields like Ortho, ENT, Neurosurg, Plastics. Can confirm it's overwhelmingly fluff (potential exception for top-tier programs like @WedgeDawg)

For example here is neurosurg:

The Neurosurgery Match: A Bibliometric Analysis of 206 First-Year Residents - PubMed

H-index is a powerful research predictor of matching into neurosurgical research institutions and can be improved by starting research early, targeting high impact journals, and participating in original clinical and laboratory investigations.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Findings included the following medians(IQRs):

Peer-reviewed Publications per person (including case reports and reviews): 1.5 (0-5)
Median journal impact factor: 1.7 (0-2.9)
Median H-index: 1 (0-2)
Frequency of first authorship on pubs: 36%

Average ERAS research entries is now 24, and yet their name is on only 1.5 actual peer-reviewed pubs, usually as middle author, and usually receiving 1-2 citations. A full quarter of matched people with a big fat 0.

I just can't even comprehend how this is continuing to happen, surely academic neurosurgeon PDs aren't being fooled and rewarding these CV games?

and just to be a prick, I'm here to tell you that your previous crusade to make step 1 P/F is about to make this so much worse lol...

 

[Mass Effect]

True, but how often does this happen though? Is it that easy to switch if you already reached PGY2 and beyond?

The first year of neuro is all medicine at many programs. In fact, as of a few years ago (and I assume still today?), the prelim year (intern year) and neuro residency were separate and it was entirely possible to match prelim at one program doing all medicine and residency at another for neurology. I also know people who transferred from medicine to neuro after intern year on medicine without losing any time in residency.

In terms of IM, I wouldn't go with the rose-colored glasses version of IM residency as it varies greatly from the bulk of IM residency programs around the country. At academic centers, IM is just as grueling as neuro.

 

[FindersFee5]

The problem is that it obfuscates the glance value of a CV. The norm in academia is to only list the highest level something reached - e.g. if something was a poster and then an abstract and then a paper, you'd only list the paper.

I know some people are out there presenting the same data at multiple conferences under slightly changed names just to rack up more and more poster entries, and will then double or triple list when it also gets an abstract or finally publishes.

That is clearly problematic. Someone with involvement in 2-3 projects resulting in a couple middle-authorships should not have a 30-item research CV.

I totally agree with this, and I'm a little worried it's going to end up potentially hurting me down the line. I have in the range of 4 - 7 papers published (average impact factor ~3) with multiple first authorships, but only ~10 research items because I didn't try to present my work much in the preclinical years. So I might end up with less "items" on my ERAS app than even the average unmatched person in plastics. I just hope program directors are willing to spend the bit of extra effort to look at what's on the app instead of sheer numbers.

 

[deleted751227]

Maybe this emphasis on quantity of research is by design. Promotion and tenure for lots of academic staff are determined partially by research output. If there’s lots of willing medical students to write your manuscripts for you as staff, you can reap the benefits with less work. I bet the arms race in research won’t be scrutinized as heavily as the arms race for board scores by academics (even though one can imagine research opportunities are MORE inequitable compared to board prep resources for various populations).

Faculty don’t make money based on how high your step score is...

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Maybe this emphasis on quantity of research is by design. Promotion and tenure for lots of academic staff are determined partially by research output. If there’s lots of willing medical students to write your manuscripts for you as staff, you can reap the benefits with less work. I bet the arms race in research won’t be scrutinized as heavily as the arms race for board scores by academics (even though one can imagine research opportunities are MORE inequitable compared to board prep resources for various populations).

Faculty don’t make money based on how high your step score is...

ReSeArCh Is FoR tHe BeNeFiT oF hUmAnItY

 

[asdf123g]

Psych getting more competitive again.

Not really, 61.2% of US seniors took psych spots. Similar to peds.

Significantly fewer IMGs are applying while more US MD's (not proportionate) are applying. Maybe I am not reading it right, but DO's apply to around 20 more programs but it seems a disproportionate number of interviews are sent to MDs.

 

[cybermed2424]

I totally agree with this, and I'm a little worried it's going to end up potentially hurting me down the line. I have in the range of 4 - 7 papers published (average impact factor ~3) with multiple first authorships, but only ~10 research items because I didn't try to present my work much in the preclinical years. So I might end up with less "items" on my ERAS app than even the average unmatched person in plastics. I just hope program directors are willing to spend the bit of extra effort to look at what's on the app instead of sheer numbers.

Same situation, around 7 but only 2 poster presentations. I suppose I could count the posters and presentations I was on with other people but honestly that just sounds so misleading.

 

[Mh0311]

What about an oral abstract presentation that I was on but didn’t give, if it was presented at 3 different conferences can I list it 3 times or only once?

 

[Lawpy]

I'm not sure this is totally true, though it's likely highly field and stage-of-training dependent. I've done some posters/presentations from projects that did go on to produce a paper, but the exact info covered in the presentation and the paper weren't always the same (sometimes from different timepoints in the ongoing project) - I've always been advised to list both on my CV as a student/trainee. However, it is true that in most fields once you become more established, poster presentations are no longer really CV worthy - most big research people I've worked with just list published manuscripts and invited (or otherwise significant) oral presentations on their CVs

I absolutely don't understand double dipping between the abstract and the poster/presentation from the same conference though. I understand that some abstracts are published in journal supplements, but if it's all the same submission process there is no reason you should get to list it twice.

I'd just list both papers and actual presentations (not school poster stuff) in separate categories. That's why i'm pushing for ERAS to have both publications (only peer reviewed papers) and presentations category. PDs will then more clearly know what people have.

 

[efle]

I totally agree with this, and I'm a little worried it's going to end up potentially hurting me down the line. I have in the range of 4 - 7 papers published (average impact factor ~3) with multiple first authorships, but only ~10 research items because I didn't try to present my work much in the preclinical years. So I might end up with less "items" on my ERAS app than even the average unmatched person in plastics. I just hope program directors are willing to spend the bit of extra effort to look at what's on the app instead of sheer numbers.

I've found a few posts by PDs at competitive programs about their methods for determining interviews. One recently, if I recall, was a rads PD in california at a program with a 250 step average, so I imagine fairly representative example of a tough to match residency.

His system essentially was to sort everyone by board scores, adjust them up or down based on yield boosters (like being from California or attending a feeder school in the area), and then start assigning interviews from the top down. Research, letters and statement were just something to glance at to make sure there was no red flags, not to thoroughly peruse.

I'm sure residents, fellows, and academic docs love having us med student grunts doing all their research scut for them. God knows there is no shortage of labor for us, if neurosurg wants their major selector to be presenting dozens of posters, then that's what people gunning neurosurg will do.

But dang, what a stupid way to select for people. I really hope the system changes soon to be more about your in-person impression as a subintern and overall fit with the programs. If we still don't have application caps in 10 years, I don't even want to think about how much of medical school will become research scut for surgical specialties. Gap year(s) prior to medical school plus additional gap year(s) during medical school are going to become basically a requirement.

 

[7331poas]

I've found a few posts by PDs at competitive programs about their methods for determining interviews. One recently, if I recall, was a rads PD in california at a program with a 250 step average, so I imagine fairly representative example of a tough to match residency.

His system essentially was to sort everyone by board scores, adjust them up or down based on yield boosters (like being from California or attending a feeder school in the area), and then start assigning interviews from the top down. Research, letters and statement were just something to glance at to make sure there was no red flags, not to thoroughly peruse.

I'm sure residents, fellows, and academic docs love having us med student grunts doing all their research scut for them. God knows there is no shortage of labor for us, if neurosurg wants their major selector to be presenting dozens of posters, then that's what people gunning neurosurg will do.

But dang, what a stupid way to select for people. I really hope the system changes soon to be more about your in-person impression as a subintern and overall fit with the programs. If we still don't have application caps in 10 years, I don't even want to think about how much of medical school will become research scut for surgical specialties. Gap year(s) prior to medical school plus additional gap year(s) during medical school are going to become basically a requirement.

What kind of in-person impression are you going to make on a radiology sub-I? Most students cannot read images well at all.

I would much rather have a predictable match where you don't have to guess if you are a competitive applicant based on your "personality".

 

[deleted751227]

I've found a few posts by PDs at competitive programs about their methods for determining interviews. One recently, if I recall, was a rads PD in california at a program with a 250 step average, so I imagine fairly representative example of a tough to match residency.

His system essentially was to sort everyone by board scores, adjust them up or down based on yield boosters (like being from California or attending a feeder school in the area), and then start assigning interviews from the top down. Research, letters and statement were just something to glance at to make sure there was no red flags, not to thoroughly peruse.

I'm sure residents, fellows, and academic docs love having us med student grunts doing all their research scut for them. God knows there is no shortage of labor for us, if neurosurg wants their major selector to be presenting dozens of posters, then that's what people gunning neurosurg will do.

But dang, what a stupid way to select for people. I really hope the system changes soon to be more about your in-person impression as a subintern and overall fit with the programs. If we still don't have application caps in 10 years, I don't even want to think about how much of medical school will become research scut for surgical specialties. Gap year(s) prior to medical school plus additional gap year(s) during medical school are going to become basically a requirement.

More research and gap years and thus more lost income/time. God knows a lot of medical students don’t truly understand opportunity costs. When I’m a mentor in the future for some pre-med, I’m going to make it a point to talk about the numbers/economics behind medicine and income.

 

[efle]

What kind of in-person impression are you going to make on a radiology sub-I? Most students cannot read images well at all.

I would much rather have a predictable match where you don't have to guess if you are a competitive applicant based on your "personality".

I mean what kind of impression are you going to make on a surgical away? You can't really do anything but close skin as far as surgery goes, either.

Not that rads even expects you to do aways, but if you did, it'd be for the same reasons - to make sure you're a normal human being that would make a good co-worker for the next half decade. The skillsets are all teachable.

The sub-I's thing is already becoming a defacto personality-check requirement. A project I was on recently in Ortho found that ~65-70% of people match to either their home institution or to one of their away sites. Odds are already against you if you're trying to break in as an unknown quantity, which personally I am totally OK with - we all have those classmates who are academic monsters but would be awful to spend all day working with for years and years.

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

I'd just list both papers and actual presentations (not school poster stuff) in separate categories. That's why i'm pushing for ERAS to have both publications (only peer reviewed papers) and presentations category. PDs will then more clearly know what people have.

Agree, that's how I have it on my CV and generally how I've seen most people do it. I think that would make perfect sense for ERAS but who are we to tell them to do things in a logical manner

 

[Oedipa Maas]

What kind of in-person impression are you going to make on a radiology sub-I? Most students cannot read images well at all.

I would much rather have a predictable match where you don't have to guess if you are a competitive applicant based on your "personality".

I took a radiology elective as a post-interview (for psych) season 4th year. My nitty gritty anatomy knowledge was long since gone and outside of some of the CNS and chest pathology, I couldn’t read the images very well at all. I honored the rotation and was told by multiple attendings that I showed more interest than some people doing SUB-Is in rads. Literally all I did was ask questions about every case, look up more patient info for each case and attend all teaching sessions. And sometimes “read the room” for when it would be a good time for me to shut up and sit in the corner. The number of pimping questions I got wrong far exceeded the number I got right but I followed them up with additional questions and did my best to apply that knowledge to the next case. No one is expecting a medical student to be an expert in the super specialized fields. In fact, when I have been on rotations with students trying to play expert, it tends to go the other way. They seem to care about whether you are easy to work with, teachable, interested, and willing to engage in what work you can do.

 

[libertyyne]

I've read or been involved with multiple projects that quantified the actual number of peer-reviewed papers for the cohorts matching into competitive fields like Ortho, ENT, Neurosurg, Plastics. Can confirm it's overwhelmingly fluff (potential exception for top-tier programs like @WedgeDawg)

For example here is neurosurg:

The Neurosurgery Match: A Bibliometric Analysis of 206 First-Year Residents - PubMed

H-index is a powerful research predictor of matching into neurosurgical research institutions and can be improved by starting research early, targeting high impact journals, and participating in original clinical and laboratory investigations.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Findings included the following medians(IQRs):

Peer-reviewed Publications per person (including case reports and reviews): 1.5 (0-5)
Median journal impact factor: 1.7 (0-2.9)
Median H-index: 1 (0-2)
Frequency of first authorship on pubs: 36%

Average ERAS research entries is now 24, and yet their name is on only 1.5 actual peer-reviewed pubs, usually as middle author, and usually receiving 1-2 citations. A full quarter of matched people with a big fat 0.

I just can't even comprehend how this is continuing to happen, surely academic neurosurgeon PDs aren't being fooled and rewarding these CV games?

My school advisor said the same thing. He said i look at those numbers as 10-15 pubs/abstracts, when in reality there is one publication with a bunch of posters/ abstract submissions. He said this knowing people who matched nsx in the past few years since he does the surgical advising and is a gen surgeon himself.

 

[efle]

My school advisor said the same thing. He said i look at those numbers as 10-15 pubs/abstracts, when in reality there is one publication with a bunch of posters/ abstract submissions. He said this knowing people who matched nsx in the past few years since he does the surgical advising and is a gen surgeon himself.

Yet another consequence of over-application, in my book. If people only applied to 15-20 surgical specialty programs instead of 80+, they'd be able to much more thoroughly read our ERAS entries, letters, and statement.

I'm pretty alarmed about the lack of caps during COVID. I think it portends never placing caps. Too much free revenue for the AAMC to let us all apply to 100+ places. I think I heard rumblings about SF Match placing a cap for Ophtho; I can only hope that materializes and shows everyone else the error of their ways.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I took a radiology elective as a post-interview (for psych) season 4th year. My nitty gritty anatomy knowledge was long since gone and outside of some of the CNS and chest pathology, I couldn’t read the images very well at all. I honored the rotation and was told by multiple attendings that I showed more interest than some people doing SUB-Is in rads. Literally all I did was ask questions about every case, look up more patient info for each case and attend all teaching sessions. And sometimes “read the room” for when it would be a good time for me to shut up and sit in the corner. The number of pimping questions I got wrong far exceeded the number I got right but I followed them up with additional questions and did my best to apply that knowledge to the next case. No one is expecting a medical student to be an expert in the super specialized fields. In fact, when I have been on rotations with students trying to play expert, it tends to go the other way. They seem to care about whether you are easy to work with, teachable, interested, and willing to engage in what work you can do.

My mentor is a radiologist, and this is exactly what he told me.

 

[7331poas]

My school advisor said the same thing. He said i look at those numbers as 10-15 pubs/abstracts, when in reality there is one publication with a bunch of posters/ abstract submissions. He said this knowing people who matched nsx in the past few years since he does the surgical advising and is a gen surgeon himself.

Then was is the school of thought for what you need as an applicant? If you apply nsx with 2 manuscripts only, is that a disadvantage? Ive heard the answer is definitely yes, but if most applicants only have 1-2 pubs...

 

[Dwan]

Then was is the school of thought for what you need as an applicant? If you apply nsx with 2 manuscripts only, is that a disadvantage? Ive heard the answer is definitely yes, but if most applicants only have 1-2 pubs...

It's fair to list both a presentation/poster and a publication for a project as those are 2 separate things and modes of disseminating your work. This should get you the number count to get your application noticed, which I think is still important given the current state of things. Having some fluff is helpful for application purposes - this is why people do case reports even though 99% of these do not contribute meaningfully to the literature. I would not list multiple conferences for the same project, or an abstract and a presentation of the same project.

 

[libertyyne]

Then was is the school of thought for what you need as an applicant? If you apply nsx with 2 manuscripts only, is that a disadvantage? Ive heard the answer is definitely yes, but if most applicants only have 1-2 pubs...

The counselor didnt seem worried about matching. I have even heard Jr.residents playing this game where they submit an abstract, do a poster presentation and then publish some case report that no one will ever read just to fluff their own CVs and research productivity. It is a weird culture of publishing as much as you can as quickly as you can without asking if the publication actually contributes to anything. I have three first author manuscripts that are data driven projects rather then straight case report, i feel uneasy applying but if you look at the data efle posted the average applicant had 1.5 pubs even tho the nsx research numbers would have you think that they are publishing 10 papers.

 

[efle]

Also have to wonder how many ERAS entries are items "under submission/review" that never end up accepted to any indexed journals

 

[Lucca]

tfw the bar for research entries on amcas is higher than on eras lol

 

[Dwan]

Also have to wonder how many ERAS entries are items "under submission/review" that never end up accepted to any indexed journals

There have been studies on this as well.
Among dermatology applicants in 2007 (before gaming was as prevalent as now): The Effect Of Academic “Misrepresentation” on Residency Match Outcomes
"Combined, the 317 applicants listed a total of 979 publications. Of these, 421 were published and 558 were listed as in preparation, submitted, or in press. Of the 558 unpublished manuscripts, 91 (16.3%) were eventually published. Among the 17 randomly chosen manuscripts that had been reported as “submitted to the JAAD,” only 6 manuscripts (35%) were indeed submitted to the JAAD according to the electronic submission tracking database. "

 

[Lucca]

There have been studies on this as well.
Among dermatology applicants in 2007 (before gaming was as prevalent as now): The Effect Of Academic “Misrepresentation” on Residency Match Outcomes
"Combined, the 317 applicants listed a total of 979 publications. Of these, 421 were published and 558 were listed as in preparation, submitted, or in press. Of the 558 unpublished manuscripts, 91 (16.3%) were eventually published. Among the 17 randomly chosen manuscripts that had been reported as “submitted to the JAAD,” only 6 manuscripts (35%) were indeed submitted to the JAAD according to the electronic submission tracking database. "

the rabbit hole only gets deeper

 

[slowthai]

"Combined, the 317 applicants listed a total of 979 publications. Of these, 421 were published and 558 were listed as in preparation, submitted, or in press. Of the 558 unpublished manuscripts, 91 (16.3%) were eventually published. Among the 17 randomly chosen manuscripts that had been reported as “submitted to the JAAD,” only 6 manuscripts (35%) were indeed submitted to the JAAD according to the electronic submission tracking database. "

I laughed when I saw this...just blatant lying, lol.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I laughed when I saw this...just blatant lying, lol.

I would hope programs that noticed this wouldnt rank these people.

 

[libertyyne]

I would hope programs that noticed this wouldnt rank these people.

Most of these folks have had years of misrepresentating their accomplishments under their belt, and it has worked for them. I doubt that many programs would take the time to do this review.

Dont even get me started on the student organization "leadership" and volunteering that applicants list.

 

[slowthai]

I would hope programs that noticed this wouldnt rank these people.

Yeah, in agreement with libertyyne, these people have been lying since premed days. No programs are taking the time to do due diligence on applicants pre-interview.

 

[Dwan]

Here's another study among all 628 radiology applicants to Duke in 2010: Ultimate publication rate of unpublished manuscripts listed on radiology residency applications at one institution - PubMed
Even many papers listed as in press and accepted are not ever published.
" After two years, 81.3% (52/64) of "in press," 58.9% (56/95) of "accepted," 70.4% (19/27) of "provisional accepted," and 43.7% (128/293) of "submitted" manuscripts were published (P < .01). "

 

[ciestar]

Most of these folks have had years of misrepresentating their accomplishments under their belt, and it has worked for them. I doubt that many programs would take the time to do this review.

Dont even get me started on the student organization "leadership" and volunteering that applicants list.

I was a “leader” of an IG. It actually was leadership imo

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I was a “leader” of an IG. It actually was leadership imo

Saying a lot of students list fluff doesn’t mean your list is fluff. I’m in IG leadership too, and it’s a lot of work.

 

[slowthai]

Here's another study among all 628 radiology applicants to Duke in 2010: Ultimate publication rate of unpublished manuscripts listed on radiology residency applications at one institution - PubMed
Even many papers listed as in press and accepted are not ever published.
" After two years, 81.3% (52/64) of "in press," 58.9% (56/95) of "accepted," 70.4% (19/27) of "provisional accepted," and 43.7% (128/293) of "submitted" manuscripts were published (P < .01). "

And DR doesn't even care about research like that...pathetic

 

[libertyyne]

I was a “leader” of an IG. It actually was leadership imo

I too was a "leader" literally the only work I did was attend meetings and send out emails once a quarter or ask an attending to show up. Not really leading anything IMO. I was in a paid leadership position prior to medical school and I know what it entails.

 

[libertyyne]

And DR doesn't even care about research like that...pathetic

If anything its more honest.