CV question

[2121115]

---

Members don't see this ad.

When applying for an academic job how should you list manuscripts in preparation? Under a separate section on your CV or just specify in parentheses where you would normally put the citation.

e.g.

Doe J, Smith J, et al. Some random pathology project. 2006 Am J Clin Pathol. 15(3):127-129.

Doe J, Smith J, et al. Some random pathology project NOS. (Manuscript in preparation).


Or should you list them at all?

 

[BierstiefelAndy]

When applying for an academic job how should you list manuscripts in preparation? Under a separate section on your CV or just specify in parentheses where you would normally put the citation.

e.g.

Doe J, Smith J, et al. Some random pathology project. 2006 Am J Clin Pathol. 15(3):127-129.

Doe J, Smith J, et al. Some random pathology project NOS. (Manuscript in preparation).


Or should you list them at all?

You are allowed to list manuscripts that are in press and it does not hurt to list those that are in preparation. I would not list them under a separate section instead list them at the end (as the list is generally ordered chronologically).

 

[Patho2009]

- The heading:

I list them under a heading of Journals & Peer Reviewed Publications

I know some people who use a heading of Bibliography

- List all the papers together and put the status next to it (in press), (in preparation), (submitted).

For me, I list only the papers that are accepted. I think listing submitted papers or the one in preparation is not worth mentioning as these might get rejected and then you have to delete them.
This is just my opinion but I know many people do it.

- For the list of authors, I list all of them exactly as appear on pubmed.com and I highlight my name, like this:

Smith J, William M., Brown S. : Random Subject. Am J Surgical Pathology....

Willim M., Apple O., Black H. : Title of a Journal. Modern Pathology.........

 

[gbwillner]

When applying for an academic job how should you list manuscripts in preparation? Under a separate section on your CV or just specify in parentheses where you would normally put the citation.

e.g.

Doe J, Smith J, et al. Some random pathology project. 2006 Am J Clin Pathol. 15(3):127-129.

Doe J, Smith J, et al. Some random pathology project NOS. (Manuscript in preparation).


Or should you list them at all?

I think listing manuscripts in preparation is OK if you don't have any published articles yet or maybe just one. I guess it could help flesh out a "thin" CV. Otherwise I wouldn't bother, because all it says is "I worked on a research project that I may or may not ever publish." If I was browsing a CV I would ignore it if I expected the applicant to do research.
Some people list their departmental talks in the CV, or published abstracts. I think the same applies- once you have something better to add you drop it to keep your CV to 3ish pages.

 

[Gyric]

Don't list " in preparation" papers, looks pathetic imo. We all have 4-5 of these floating around at any given time. It is ok to list accepted manuscripts or book chapters that have been sent to the publisher. Many CVs will have a research section that allows for a narrative of your interests/current projects and typically you would select a few of your high impact papers and describe their significance in a few sentences. Some people put patents pending or issued in this section also.

I do not think you must keep a CV to a specific length, just make sure it is relevant (ok to drop all those high school/college awards; in MD school the only awards I would keep are AOA and any national/international recognition), well-organized and easy to read. Good luck!

 

[KCShaw]

I wouldn't aim to keep a CV short. Organized, yes. Some very "successful" (in terms of leaping into advanced academic positions), especially for their age, sport absurdly long CV's. We had a lecture on CV's from one such person, who provided his CV as one example. The first few pages were concise and included highlighting his accomplishments, but the next 50-100+ included pretty much everything he'd done I believe since med school. Every lecture/formal talk, paper, society meeting, etc. He carried a digital copy around with him essentially everywhere he went, and added to it constantly.

We had the whole "inflating your CV" and "too much info makes it unreadable/useless" debates, but his point was that if it was academically relevant and you did it you should keep a record of it -- and where else should it go but your CV? Stuff you want to flaunt you can put in the first few pages of highlights, but you've still got everything else there, organized and available, if anyone wants to question or compare your qualifications or activities.

I also think some people confuse the usual use and meaning of a resume in the non-academic job world, versus that of a more complete CV in the cutthroat academic world. But as with most things, there are varying opinions on the matter.

 

[pathstudent]

I don't mind seeing in prep manuscripts as long as they are important. Dumb little case reports shouldn't be mentioned unless they are published. I hate seeing posters without an associated publication. A poster without a publication is a job left unfinished and a real red flag that the resident isn't serious about academics and is just doing projects in order to get a fellowship for community practice

 

[KCShaw]

IMO, if they're important enough to be accepted as a poster, or important enough to be submitted, or important enough to have staff backing with a discreet goal and viable methods (getting results), they're important enough to document. If you've got an attending backing the project then I think you're not only within your rights to include it, but probably -should- include it. If you're just batting around the idea of doing a case report, then probably not, since you haven't actually put in any real effort yet.

Yeah, sure, having 15 things "in progress" or "unpublished" or "poster presentation" and none or a straightforward case report as the only things published, it will probably raise eyebrows. But it also shows that you've been active...if not yet successful. You'll probably even get questions about it, which opens up a world of doors to explain what you've learned, why things were turned down or burned out, and how you would face similar problems in the future. If you -document- nothing, you've -got- nothing.

Personally I don't think most fellowship programs expect you to already have a dozen peer reviewed publications which change the face of the specialty. They want to see enough academic interest/willingness to try, to believe they can get some academic work (preferably a publication or two) out of you during your fellowship, so they can appease the department. For the next step, academic jobs, if you're truly interested in them then you'll be able to answer those previously indicated "questions," and probably already have more than one non-case-report publication. If you're not, you're probably not going to get the job, and may not even bother applying to them -- in which case the research side of your CV is more of an interesting "look, they're well educated" backdrop documenting your history.

 

[2121115]

If you -document- nothing, you've -got- nothing...

Personally I don't think most fellowship programs expect you to already have a dozen peer reviewed publications which change the face of the specialty. They want to see enough academic interest/willingness to try, to believe they can get some academic work (preferably a publication or two) out of you during your fellowship, so they can appease the department....

For the next step, academic jobs, if you're truly interested in them then you'll be able to answer those previously indicated "questions," and probably already have more than one non-case-report publication. If you're not, you're probably not going to get the job, and may not even bother applying to them -- in which case the research side of your CV is more of an interesting "look, they're well educated" backdrop documenting your history.

I agree with all of these points.

I would also add that few residents are able to do meaningful research during residency. Residency is very busy and there is not a lot of time to collect tons of data and follow up, etc, particularly when you are not an expert and at the beginning are learning the basics of pathology in general. I think fellowships really just want to see that you are likely to be able to generate a few papers for them during your fellowship. As for academic jobs that require actual real projects (vanishingly few these days), they may want to see a bit more, however, most of these job applicants will have PhD's and real documented research via that route.

 

[zao275]

I also agree with KCShaw. I think a CV is a great place to keep your work organized and available. You can always make a shorter version if needed. It is much easier to delete unnecessary things than to have to look them up and add them if suddenly they are important for some reason.

I have heard many of my attendings say things in partial agreement with pathstudent in that if the poster😛ublished manuscript ratio is too high, it will look bad. Not a single interviewer complained about my CV (I have about 5 papers and maybe 20 posters); I actually received compliments about how active I have been. Maybe I just got lucky; others might have slammed me for this. But like 2121115 said, it shows that you are doing something.

At this point in my career (fellow), I still list in-progress manuscripts, but the rule I have made for myself (no one told me this that I can recall, I just thought it was a reasonable compromise) is that I only list manuscripts that I am essentially finished with but pending attending editing, additional info from another author, etc. In other words, if I am finished with enough of it that I could print out a copy and hand it to the interviewer that day, then I will list it on my CV as in progress. The other 5 or 10 projects that are in the data collection/idea/outline/etc phases I tend to leave off my CV.

 

[BierstiefelAndy]

You shouldn't be criticized for this. You are still a trainee and have a lot of clinical responsibilities on your plate as it is. If you were an attending, however, different story as the expectations are greater.

If you have a lot of unpublished abstracts, part of the blame may rest on the attending who is sponsoring the work, especially if the research question to be studied was an ill-conceived one or if the attending is not conscientious enough to move the project along to the next phase in a timely manner.

So for the trainees out there, don't fret too much over this.

Plus, you can always publish the work as a junior attending if, let's say, you go into academics. Work published during your academic appointment counts toward promotion and academic departments know that some of your publications during your first one or two years of your appointment come from fellowship-initiated projects.

I have heard many of my attendings say things in partial agreement with pathstudent in that if the poster😛ublished manuscript ratio is too high, it will look bad. Not a single interviewer complained about my CV (I have about 5 papers and maybe 20 posters); I actually received compliments about how active I have been. Maybe I just got lucky; others might have slammed me for this. But like 2121115 said, it shows that you are doing something.

At this point in my career (fellow), I still list in-progress manuscripts, but the rule I have made for myself (no one told me this that I can recall, I just thought it was a reasonable compromise) is that I only list manuscripts that I am essentially finished with but pending attending editing, additional info from another author, etc. In other words, if I am finished with enough of it that I could print out a copy and hand it to the interviewer that day, then I will list it on my CV as in progress. The other 5 or 10 projects that are in the data collection/idea/outline/etc phases I tend to leave off my CV.

 

[2121115]

Plus, you can always publish the work as a junior attending if, let's say, you go into academics. Work published during your academic appointment counts toward promotion...

What about work published during residency? For instance, if I have a first authored manuscript published in Modern Path or AJCP (decent journals) does that only help me get hired but not count towards promotion? If so, I may slow down on a few projects and hold them until I am an attending.

 

[BU Pathology]

What about work published during residency? For instance, if I have a first authored manuscript published in Modern Path or AJCP (decent journals) does that only help me get hired but not count towards promotion? If so, I may slow down on a few projects and hold them until I am an attending.

All of your papers will count for promotion, whether they were published as an undergrad, med student, etc. You should not slow down since it is easier to write while the work is fresh. This viewpoint is based on serving as the chair of a promotions committee, writing dozens of letters for people to be promoted, and getting several of my faculty promotoed.

For the CV, there are no hard and fast rules. I recently reviewed a CV where a senior faculty member listed more than 800 abstracts. The bookkeeping abilities of this individual are admirable, but that is probably overkill.

In my opinion, any manuscript that has been submitted should be listed. It annoys me to see manuscripts in preparation, but I do understand a junior faculty member or new trainee having a thin CV and wanting to show progress.

Dan Remick
Chair and Professor of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Boston University School of Medcine, Boston Medical Center

 

[BierstiefelAndy]

Hi Dr. Remick,

My understanding is that publications published during undergrad, grad school, medical school, residency, and fellowship training are all taken into consideration when determining one's appointment in an academic institution. Hence, "salary and rank" are often "commensurate" with one's prior accomplishments.

However, for promotion, I thought that one needed to show new publications during one's actual appointment as a junior attending. For instance, take two people:

Sally has 30 publications prior to joining the Dept of Pathology at University of XXXXX and during the first 3 years as a junior attending only publishes 1 paper (Total of 31 papers).

John has 20 publications prior to joining the department at the same institution but publishes 11 papers during the first 3 years as a junior attending (Total of 31 papers). Many of these 11 recent publications stem from projects during the fellowship year prior to his appointment at University of XXXXX. John, therefore, has had more impressive fodder for annual reports as an attending at this institution.

Let us assume that the caliber of publications are similar between to two individuals.

Which person would be on the faster track to promotion?

Admittedly, you are more experienced in these matters; based on what I know, I would reason that John would be promoted faster than Sally.

Based on your experience, am I missing something?

All of your papers will count for promotion, whether they were published as an undergrad, med student, etc. You should not slow down since it is easier to write while the work is fresh. This viewpoint is based on serving as the chair of a promotions committee, writing dozens of letters for people to be promoted, and getting several of my faculty promotoed.

 

[pathstudent]

My understanding also.

But there could be great variability between institutions. 800 abstracts seems almost ******ed and/or impossible. If you could crank out one a month that would take like seventy years.

Hi Dr. Remick,

My understanding is that publications published during undergrad, grad school, medical school, residency, and fellowship training are all taken into consideration when determining one's appointment in an academic institution. Hence, "salary and rank" are often "commensurate" with one's prior accomplishments.

However, for promotion, I thought that one needed to show new publications during one's actual appointment as a junior attending. For instance, take two people:

Sally has 30 publications prior to joining the Dept of Pathology at University of XXXXX and during the first 3 years as a junior attending only publishes 1 paper (Total of 31 papers).

John has 20 publications prior to joining the department at the same institution but publishes 11 papers during the first 3 years as a junior attending (Total of 31 papers). Many of these 11 recent publications stem from projects during the fellowship year prior to his appointment at University of XXXXX. John, therefore, has had more impressive fodder for annual reports as an attending at this institution.

Let us assume that the caliber of publications are similar between to two individuals.

Which person would be on the faster track to promotion?

Admittedly, you are more experienced in these matters; based on what I know, I would reason that John would be promoted faster than Sally.

Based on your experience, am I missing something?

 

[2121115]

However, for promotion, I thought that one needed to show new publications during one's actual appointment as a junior attending.

Hmmm... if this is true I may actually hold on a couple of projects that I have going that have potential to land in quality journals so I can count those. Oh well, I guess I will just ask at where ever I happen to end up as an attending one of these days.

 

[BU Pathology]

Hi Dr. Remick,

My understanding is that publications published during undergrad, grad school, medical school, residency, and fellowship training are all taken into consideration when determining one's appointment in an academic institution. Hence, "salary and rank" are often "commensurate" with one's prior accomplishments.

However, for promotion, I thought that one needed to show new publications during one's actual appointment as a junior attending. For instance, take two people:

Sally has 30 publications prior to joining the Dept of Pathology at University of XXXXX and during the first 3 years as a junior attending only publishes 1 paper (Total of 31 papers).

John has 20 publications prior to joining the department at the same institution but publishes 11 papers during the first 3 years as a junior attending (Total of 31 papers). Many of these 11 recent publications stem from projects during the fellowship year prior to his appointment at University of XXXXX. John, therefore, has had more impressive fodder for annual reports as an attending at this institution.

Let us assume that the caliber of publications are similar between to two individuals.

Which person would be on the faster track to promotion?

Admittedly, you are more experienced in these matters; based on what I know, I would reason that John would be promoted faster than Sally.

Based on your experience, am I missing something?

If someone was able to publish 30 papers prior to coming on faculty, he/she will probably continue this trajectory and publication rate. If the publications fall out considerably, then she/he was probably not the driving force behind the original publications. If someone does not continue on their trajectory the chair will need to carefully work with that faculty member to get her/him back on track.

The main goal is to improve the health of the nation, not get promoted. If your projects are going to have substantial impact, then the information needs to be put into the published literature sooner.

The impact of your work will be taken into consideration in addition to the total number. If you publish 3 or 4 papers, which become widely cited during a short time, this will carry substantial weight with promotions committees. Publishing your papers earlier allows more time for them to become cited. So there can be goal congruence, the health of the nation is improved and you get promoted.

 

[2121115]

If you publish 3 or 4 papers, which become widely cited during a short time, this will carry substantial weight with promotions committees. Publishing your papers earlier allows more time for them to become cited. So there can be goal congruence, the health of the nation is improved and you get promoted.

How does one know when their work has been cited?

 

[BU Pathology]

How does one know when their work has been cited?

Pubmed (which is much better than studentdoctor for real answers)
Google Scholar
Science Citation Index

People interested in an academic career should also become familar with the H-index, which is rapidly becoming an important metric for promotion. The H-index is a simple concept but rather difficult to describe (at least for me). Those who are interested should look it up using pubmed.

 

[KCShaw]

Several of the journal databases evidently have a citation tracking feature, such as Ovid, EBSCOhost, ScienceDirect, and so on. Google Scholar also does this as part of its standard search results, which is fairly convenient. I don't know of one that's considered "the" authority. Part of the difficulty is the vast number of different publications, including web-only publications in other countries, which may have no formal link to any of the citation tracking databases. Some academic institutions have published citation tracking guides to help.

 

[BierstiefelAndy]

If someone was able to publish 30 papers prior to coming on faculty, he/she will probably continue this trajectory and publication rate. If the publications fall out considerably, then she/he was probably not the driving force behind the original publications. If someone does not continue on their trajectory the chair will need to carefully work with that faculty member to get her/him back on track.

Very true. Of course, this would take into account that for a trainee, before becoming faculty, increased publication rate and impact of the publications would, to some extent, reflect certain variables outside of his/her control such as:
(a) The political power of the supervising faculty (i.e., if you work under a hot-shot faculty member, it will be easier to publish in higher impact factor journals...now this is more of an issue in basic science).
(b) Increased network of collaborators connected to the supervising faculty member (i.e., ability to pool resources effectively and efficiently to get projects done faster)
(c) Funding already available to the supervising faculty member.

As a junior faculty member at a new institution, the above parameters are no longer a "given". Instead, he/she must establish one or more of the above which understandably takes time.

The main goal is to improve the health of the nation, not get promoted. If your projects are going to have substantial impact, then the information needs to be put into the published literature sooner.

In the grand scheme of things, you are right. Understandably, though, junior attendings are more stressed about keeping their jobs which, at some institutions, could be dependent on maintaining some quota of publications on a yearly basis in addition to providing good patient care on a daily basis. Keeping one's job allows one to put food on the table and to provide for one's family. And promotion is something that one may need to achieve to keep one's job (unless you are at an institution which allows you to retire as an assistant professor, for instance). Hence, to relieve a little bit of pressure, (and there is certainly enough pressure placed on junior attendings in academic medicine as it is), junior attendings may want to get the maximum "bang for the buck" when it comes down to publications.

That is why I presented my viewpoint which should not be taken as some heuristic to "game the system" but simply a different angle by which one could view the issue presented by the OP.

To the OP, I do not advocate holding back on writing your manuscripts until you are a junior attending. The risk with that is someone else with the same data as yourself may publish before you and "scoop" you. Look, every project goes through their natural progression from inception to publication anyway.

The impact of your work will be taken into consideration in addition to the total number. If you publish 3 or 4 papers, which become widely cited during a short time, this will carry substantial weight with promotions committees. Publishing your papers earlier allows more time for them to become cited. So there can be goal congruence, the health of the nation is improved and you get promoted.

Your point is well appreciated. This is a variable that people, including myself, likely do not take into significant consideration. Thanks for reminding me of this. The whole bit about the H-index is something I am now curious about and will check into.

 

[pathstudent]

The main goal is to improve the health of the nation, not get promoted. If your projects are going to have substantial impact, then the information needs to be put into the published literature sooner.

.

WHiel I believe that academics is the more enlightened more intellectual and does represent desiring to do more good for more people than private practice, the idea that out abstracts and pubs improve the health of the nation is kind of absurd.

I read that that since the 50s the slight improvement in life expectancy for those with lung cancer has been due to improved surgical technique. THis means that all the pathology literature regarding lung cancer has done zilch to improve the health of the nation with regards to lung cancer. All it has done is caused more pathologists to do more immunos and special studies to make medicine more expensive.

But I believe that research is important as a goal of itself. Cosmology research does nothing to improve the health of the nation or really benefit mankind at all, but it is essential. Medicine is entitled to the same right.

And Like Andy B. said when you are a junior faculty trying to feed your family and clothe your kids, getting promoted and keeping your job is way more important than the health of the nation.

 

[veo1]

Which templates are you all using for your CVs? The ones included with MS Word don't really seem to be formatted for the sorts of things we need to list. Any guidance would be appreciated.

 

[BU Pathology]

Which templates are you all using for your CVs? The ones included with MS Word don't really seem to be formatted for the sorts of things we need to list. Any guidance would be appreciated.

Ask one of the junior attendings at your current institution for a copy of her/his CV and use that as a template. Every institution has a unique style for how they want their CVs prepared, and these change with new Deans or Provosts. There is no national standard.

 

[zao275]

Here is the Wikipedia explanation of the H-index (maybe not as reliable as pubmed, but pretty good for many situations): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index

 

[Patho2009]

junior attendings are more stressed about keeping their jobs which, at some institutions, could be dependent on maintaining some quota of publications on a yearly basis in addition to providing good patient care on a daily basis. Keeping one's job allows one to put food on the table and to provide for one's family. And promotion is something that one may need to achieve to keep one's job (unless you are at an institution which allows you to retire as an assistant professor, for instance). Hence, to relieve a little bit of pressure, (and there is certainly enough pressure placed on junior attendings in academic medicine as it is), junior attendings may want to get the maximum "bang for the buck" when it comes down to publications.

That is very true and very well-said.

As a new policy in one of the institutions where I rotated as a fellow, the junior attendings (or the newly hired pathologists) have to prove their academic activities in order to renew their contracts. Senior attendings in the same institutions were exempted from this new policy. On the other hand, the clinical service was very busy and the workload was very high. The junior attendings were overwhelmed and they pressured the fellows (including me) to work on projects and/or write previously done projects. It turned out into a cycle of "pressure" starting from the department head who was spreading "threats" every time he meets with the staff and going down on the poor fellows, who were already struggling in the grossing room, and striving to learn from their cases and spend time on the microscope, rather than spending time on writing or doing a project that wouldn't help them much in their future practice and felt compelled to do it just to staisfy a lazy attending who wants to throw the work on others or to get promoted on the shoulder of the fellows.

Pushing the fellows to do the work, especially when it comes to rush to finish the work to meet deadlines of abstracts drove everybody crazy. This turned the entire environement tense and unfriendly.

Unfortunately, this is very common among many academic institutions, including the well reputed ones. As a fellow, I would prefer spending more time on the miscroscope to improve my diagnostic skills to using the valuable time of my fellowship in writing.


I have to say that most of the accomplishments are done -at the genetic molecular levels- by PhD molecular biologists rather than clinical practicing pathologists. At the clinical level, most of the work is confined to immunohistochemistry, mainly introducing new immunomarkers and/or new histologic diagnostic criteria. Such work-especially the latter- is usually done by the most experienced pathologists or academic pathologists dedicated to research.


I do believe that research and clinical practice don't go together (I mean with "research" here the work that occurs at high levels such as molecular genetics, not simple academic writing such as case reports).


My advice to residents in training: we understand the "publication mania" that is floating around and distinguish among candidates in a very deceptive way. Time for your training is short and would go very fast. Work on improving your skills rather than failing the boards or making your competency questionable when you miss an easy-to-recognize carcinoma on a prostate or breast biopsy.

I do not underestimate research but I do not underestimate the value of the time in training either. Research can be always done at a later stage of your career. Sit in the sign-out sessions or go and observe the frozen section exam rather than sitting on your desk writing e-mails or writing a project that wouldn't be very much useful for your career as a practicing pathologist. If you miss a simple diagnosis putting your license at risk or ruining the management of a patient by a faulty stupid diagnosis or lousy report, you are in my eyes "a bad pathologist" and I wouldn't care how your presentation skills are, how many publications you have and/or in what journals you published.

 

[BierstiefelAndy]

Here is the Wikipedia explanation of the H-index (maybe not as reliable as pubmed, but pretty good for many situations): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index

I saw this as well. It's good that you posted the link. You can calculate your H-index using a program called Publish or Perish. In this program, you can find all your papers and then the program spits out an H-index.

It's quite interesting this index...after playing around with the software, my initial impression is that this index serves to rank your publications and calculate some kind of "median" based on several variables including number of papers and how many times each paper has been cited and citations per year. Already, I get the sense that this index will not reward a person who publishes hundreds of case reports that all get rarely or never get cited. I could study this further as some sort of mathematical exercise.

Nonetheless, the more important question is how this index is used for evaluating the productiveness of faculty. Is there some cutoff number that is employed for judging a faculty of a certain rank as productive versus unproductive. Dr. Remick alludes to the increased use of this index in evaluating faculty. Is there some sort of consensus in the academic community as to how best use this index.

 

[2121115]

I do believe that research and clinical practice don't go together (I mean with "research" here the work that occurs at high levels such as molecular genetics, not simple academic writing such as case reports).


My advice to residents in training: we understand the "publication mania" that is floating around and distinguish among candidates in a very deceptive way. Time for your training is short and would go very fast. Work on improving your skills rather than failing the boards or making your competency questionable when you miss an easy-to-recognize carcinoma on a prostate or breast biopsy.

I do not underestimate research but I do not underestimate the value of the time in training either. Research can be always done at a later stage of your career. Sit in the sign-out sessions or go and observe the frozen section exam rather than sitting on your desk writing e-mails or writing a project that wouldn't be very much useful for your career as a practicing pathologist. If you miss a simple diagnosis putting your license at risk or ruining the management of a patient by a faulty stupid diagnosis or lousy report, you are in my eyes "a bad pathologist" and I wouldn't care how your presentation skills are, how many publications you have and/or in what journals you published.

This is a valid point, however, the world doesn't seem to work that way. If you are a resident at a large academic institution, the research projects that you do are your political capital when it comes to getting fellowships and references. Residents going into private practice still need to do many research projects to get competitive fellowships, not to mention even moderately competitive fellowships. Also, want a strong reference from your attendings? Just being competent at sign is not enough. You have to do projects with the right people and get them published so it becomes a "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" situation. Residents need to become competent at signing out cases, but they also need to put significant time into clinical research projects. To be successful you need to do both well during residency.

Example: Resident A and resident B are both developing strong clinical skills during residency. Resident A, however, also publishes a paper in AJCP with several prominent attendings listed as co-authors. Guess who gets the stellar reference and who is "just another competent resident"?

 

[KCShaw]

The research vs residency/fellowship training issue is also addressed to an extent in this thread:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=735603

I think the research-as-political-capital analogy is a good one. Publishing doesn't make you a better or worse practicing pathologist per se, but it certainly is one factor among many in early job opportunities.

Personally I've always thought residency should be a hotbed of meta-analyses of existing papers, since that's what residents are doing more of as part of their training -- looking at the literature to settle disputes among textbooks, answer questions for clinicians, etc. Or, alternatively, becoming involved in the publications of other specialties; they use us regularly, why not turn the tables and get first author on something they're organizing but we're inadvertently helping with anyway? A certain amount of research (published or not), primarily reviews and addressing practical clinical questions, should be a natural "part" of pathology residency training, not a separate addition taking away from the bread & butter.

 

[zao275]

Personally I've always thought residency should be a hotbed of meta-analyses of existing papers, since that's what residents are doing more of as part of their training -- looking at the literature to settle disputes among textbooks, answer questions for clinicians, etc. Or, alternatively, becoming involved in the publications of other specialties; they use us regularly, why not turn the tables and get first author on something they're organizing but we're inadvertently helping with anyway? A certain amount of research (published or not), primarily reviews and addressing practical clinical questions, should be a natural "part" of pathology residency training, not a separate addition taking away from the bread & butter.

Well said!