ERAS Letter to the Editor Research Category?

[medoneday77]

I am a current MS4 applying this cycle and have a letter to the editor publication in a high impact factor journal. The letter to the editor relates to a medical humanities topic and was submitted, went through the peer-reviewed editing process, and was published (has a doi, etc.). On ERAS, what category of research would this go under? Is it a Published Peer-Reviewed Journal Article given that it was published in a journal via the peer-review process (despite it not being an article regarding a data-driven study)? Is it an Other Article (which I assume makes it less valuable to my application and is a wider catch-all category)? Or something else?

I've asked several mentors and looked around SDN and other sites but there doesn't seem to be a consensus and it seems like ERAS didn't used to have so many research categories so there doesn't seem to be a clear precedent. I don't at all want to oversell my work, but I also don't want to sell myself short.

Thanks for the help.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[kopftonmd]

Just a med student too, but if it's an article published in a journal and has been peer-reviewed... that sounds like a peer-reviewed journal article to me. I'm dubious that anyone would call you out on the categorization of one little article in your interviews, and if someone happens to do so, you can just say that it was peer reviewed and a published article so it seemed right. Probably more important would be your ability to talk about the piece intelligently, ofc.

 

[DameJulie]

Yes it counts for ERAS purposes!

 

[Frogger27]

Yeah it’s peer reviewed, especially if it is on pubmed..

Other articles are things like opinion pieces on websites that do not undergo peer view

 

[medoneday77]

Thank you all! This is extremely helpful and anxiety-relieving.

 

[thecookiemonster]

Similar question here--what about a Letter to the Editor published in a top journal but not peer-reviewed, just edited by the section editor? It has a PMID/DOI.

 

[NotaCop]

OP, make sure to triple check. LTTE are usually not peer reviewed (editorial process doesn’t count as formal PR). You can catch flak for trying to pad your app if you put it in the main PR journal articles section, even if unintentional

 

[seeinghowitgoes]

On my CV I list these types of things under the heading “other publications in peer reviewed journals” because, as other individuals pointed out, LTTE are often not externally peer reviewed (but are reviewed by the editors).

But ERAS is not a true CV. I think it’s perfectly fine to call it a peer reviewed paper for the purposes of Residency selection. Residencies want to see you carried something from idea to result, and the category in Eras matters much less.

Discrepancies in apps matter much more than these types of things. That is, for example, if you bill yourself as a big research person then only have this LTTE listed in your pubs it looks much worse than how you actually classify the LTTE.

 

[drplzz]

It would be a huge disservice to all the actual peer-reviewed research that was heavily scrutinized to try and equate your LTTE to it. A LTTE is not peer-reviewed even if the editor "reviewed it."

 

[Dr G Oogle]

I am an editorial board member and occasions LTTE writer. these are NOT peer reviewed articles and should not be listed as such. Likely your letter was sent to an editorial board member or editor, found to be topical and sent back for some corrections/addenda. List it under “other”.

Also ERAS is considered a CV for residency purposes and is structured as such when faculty look at applications; if listed under peer reviewed articles and reviewed by faculty with any familiarity with research it will likely raise some eyebrows. Some that are heavily involved in research (like me) might be irritated enough by it to bring it up during a rank meeting.

 

[medoneday77]

Thank you all for the feedback. With the discussion as it was in July, I had included my LTTE in ERAS as a peer-reviewed journal article given that it had a PMID even though I felt somewhat uncomfortable doing so. Given the new discussion this week, I have moved it to "Other articles." I obviously want to put my work in the best standing possible and I hope to discuss my LTTE in my interviews, but more than anything I don't want to come off as misrepresenting myself or my application.

 

[flapjack3d]

I am an editorial board member and occasions LTTE writer. these are NOT peer reviewed articles and should not be listed as such. Likely your letter was sent to an editorial board member or editor, found to be topical and sent back for some corrections/addenda. List it under “other”.

Also ERAS is considered a CV for residency purposes and is structured as such when faculty look at applications; if listed under peer reviewed articles and reviewed by faculty with any familiarity with research it will likely raise some eyebrows. Some that are heavily involved in research (like me) might be irritated enough by it to bring it up during a rank meeting.

Wow you guys really are that petty

 

[Dr G Oogle]

It’s not petty, and it’s super annoying. I’d rather have someone with no research than someone misrepresenting an editorial as research, and only in cases where this “research” is used as a positive mark for the applicant. In that instance I’d say, “actually it’s an editorial and not peer reviewed original research”. As the OP kindly demonstrated, its a relatively simple task to ask someone where this should go on ERAS.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Wow you guys really are that petty

Agree with above, this isn't petty, it's disingenuous to claim that something underwent peer review when it in fact was not. There are other ways to enter this into ERAS specifically because one should NOT represent a publication that doesn't undergo review, such as an editorial, as equivalent to peer-reviewed original research.

 

[seeinghowitgoes]

It’s not petty, and it’s super annoying. I’d rather have someone with no research than someone misrepresenting an editorial as research, and only in cases where this “research” is used as a positive mark for the applicant. In that instance I’d say, “actually it’s an editorial and not peer reviewed original research”. As the OP kindly demonstrated, its a relatively simple task to ask someone where this should go on ERAS.

While I agree, I find it much more problematic if somebody is billing themselves as a researcher and then includes just an editorial (mislabeled as research on their CV) as an example of their track record - then that shows unawareness at best/dishonesty at worst in addition to being unimpressive from a scholastic standpoint.

But if they’re not claiming that in their app and just mention the editorial as an example of something they’ve done with their time and then have the editorial listed under peer reviewed papers vs other pubs, honestly it’s just not that big of a deal to me - a little unawareness of which articles actually get sent out for peer review that 50% of docs wouldn’t realize.

That said, the fact that many docs don’t know which articles are peer reviewed, and the fact that many do claim “expertise” in so many domains without ever publishing peer reviewed work in said domains is a bigger problem I totally see in medicine. On some level, I do see this as a tiny microcosm of that, especially if a person tries to use an editorial as evidence of expertise or research chops, and thus I do get why people care about labeling these things correctly on apps.

 

[Dr G Oogle]

While I agree, I find it much more problematic if somebody is billing themselves as a researcher and then includes just an editorial (mislabeled as research on their CV) as an example of their track record - then that shows unawareness at best/dishonesty at worst in addition to being unimpressive from a scholastic standpoint.

But if they’re not claiming that in their app and just mention the editorial as an example of something they’ve done with their time and then have the editorial listed under peer reviewed papers vs other pubs, honestly it’s just not that big of a deal to me - a little unawareness of which articles actually get sent out for peer review that 50% of docs wouldn’t realize.

That said, the fact that many docs don’t know which articles are peer reviewed, and the fact that many do claim “expertise” in so many domains without ever publishing peer reviewed work in said domains is a bigger problem I totally see in medicine. On some level, I do see this as a tiny microcosm of that, especially if a person tries to use an editorial as evidence of expertise or research chops, and thus I do get why people care about labeling these things correctly on apps.

believe me I have a much bigger problem with people that pass themselves off as academic while only having a book chapter or a bunch of reviews in the medical journal of esoterica. Especially when said person gets promoted on the basis of these “accolades”