ERAS publication section?

[Dr. Xavier]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Dumb Question. Do you only put publications? Can you put submissions, poster presentations, or manuscripts in preperation? I don't have any publications at all so if I can't put posters and submissions this area is a big blank.😱

 

[Hurricane]

Most posters have a corresponding abstract printed somewhere, so you can consider them as published abstracts. In the field for journal title, put the name of the meeting.

I had a couple articles that had been submitted but not accepted yet, so I put "sumbitted" for the journal title. People do that all the time on "real" CVs.

I suppose one could do the same for "in preparation." Opinions probably differ on that, but IMO listing an in preparation manuscript shows you participated in research and contributed enough to get an authorship on a paper that's going to be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. Just because the timing didn't work out to have it already submitted by the ERAS deadline doesn't mean you have to leave it off and pretend it didn't happen.

 

[allylz]

My question is whether I can include presentations that were not based on traditional research. I have had many speaking opportunities in medical school including presentations at national conferences and speaking at special engagements at my own medical school. But I don't know where to put that on my application because I have never published anything and had no posters. These presentations were based on my experiences in the field of international health.

 

[Bevo]

I got a related question on this. I submitted a case report for publication about a month ago. I asked my PI about if I should list it under research or pubs. He said under pubs with the statement of "In press" or something like that.

Where exactly would I put that? In the title? I know the journal name but not positive about what issue it'll be out in.

 

[Faebinder]

I got a related question on this. I submitted a case report for publication about a month ago. I asked my PI about if I should list it under research or pubs. He said under pubs with the statement of "In press" or something like that.

Where exactly would I put that? In the title? I know the journal name but not positive about what issue it'll be out in.

Right... put the name of the journal.. leave the date empty..

 

[Ruban]

Right... put the name of the journal.. leave the date empty..

But what if he submits it and it gets rejected?

 

[p53]

I hate to be the voice of reason on here, but the fact is that residency directors can sense BS or fluff to make it seem like you have done research.

Just remember it is these people's job to scrutinize applications and look for embellishment. They do it year in and year out. Go ahead and risk putting speaking engagements under research or submitted research under publications. The fact is that publications means it is published. There is no gray area. If it is submitted put the research under "research" not publications. If it becomes published later in the year than update programs of this information by email.

Your crafty methods of shining light will be looked upon by a program director as being disingenous. That is the last impression you would want to make on a residency application. One of the residency director's main job is to have the right people (people with honesty and integrity) in the program, do you really think you can outsmart someone like that by putting down fluff?

I personally would leave the publications and/or research section blank than have even the slightest impression that I am dishonest. You are dealing with some very smart people that are looking for ways to separate applicants. Dishonesty is the quickest way to make an average applicant fall off the program director's rank list.

 

[Wahoo]

The fact is that publications means it is published. There is no gray area. If it is submitted put the research under "research" not publications. If it becomes published later in the year than update programs of this information by email.

It may vary from one specialty to the next, but some specialties have specific guidelines for what goes in the "publications" section. The CORD (Council of Residency Directors) for emergency medicine, for instance, gives these instructions:
http://www.cordem.org/citation.htm

So if you're applying in EM, as one example, you should include submitted manuscripts and presentations on the ERAS publications/presentations section.

 

[p53]

It may vary from one specialty to the next, but some specialties have specific guidelines for what goes in the "publications" section. The CORD (Council of Residency Directors) for emergency medicine, for instance, gives these instructions:
http://www.cordem.org/citation.htm

So if you're applying in EM, as one example, you should include submitted manuscripts and presentations on the ERAS publications/presentations section.

Actually according to your link only manuscripts and abstracts should be included in ERAS. It only specifies that presentations should be for the interviews.

Bottomline: Only include verified published research on ERAS under publication. Every year students try to beat the system but it can't be beat because you are dealing with a program director that has a scrutinizing eye.

Why risk it?

Every program that you apply to on ERAS, the corresponding program director that reads your ERAS will know it is fluff.

Did you notice the publications on the bottom of your link. I guarantee the program directors are looking for people trying to "misrepresent" their ERA application.

From you link below.

Gurudevan SV, Mower WR: Misrepresentation of research publications among emergency medicine residency applicants. Ann Emerg Med March 1996;27:327-330

Knopp RK: Misrepresentation of resident credentials. Ann Emerg Med March 1996;27:366-367


If you misrepresent you are screwed (i.e. submitted papers on publications). Only include published research on publications.

 

[grit]

Actually according to your link only manuscripts and abstracts should be included in ERAS. It only specifies that presentations should be for the interviews.

Bottomline: Only include verified published research on ERAS under publication. Every year students try to beat the system but it can't be beat because you are dealing with a program director that has a scrutinizing eye.

Why risk it?

Every program that you apply to on ERAS, the corresponding program director that reads your ERAS will know it is fluff.

Did you notice the publications on the bottom of your link. I guarantee the program directors are looking for people trying to "misrepresent" their ERA application.

From you link below.

Gurudevan SV, Mower WR: Misrepresentation of research publications among emergency medicine residency applicants. Ann Emerg Med March 1996;27:327-330

Knopp RK: Misrepresentation of resident credentials. Ann Emerg Med March 1996;27:366-367


If you misrepresent you are screwed (i.e. submitted papers on publications). Only include published research on publications.

you're being unnecessarily harsh. the truth is, it is not unusual at all for people to list submitted manuscripts and even legitimate manuscripts-in-progress on CVs. i wouldn't endorse listing a "future" manuscript as a "manuscript in progress" if you haven't even begun work on writing it up. but every PI i have ever worked for (multiple throughout college, graduate school, and med school) has encouraged me to list submitted manuscripts on my CV and they in fact do it themselves. in fact i did it on my med school applications and my submitted work was fodder for interview discussion just as much as my officially published work--my interviewers wanted to hear all about it. it's not "fluff" and it's definitely not some sneaky way to "beat the system", in your words--as another poster mentioned, it's not your fault that it hasn't been published in time for your ERAS application. every person who reads through your application is aware that the potential exists for your manuscript to be rejected or undergo extensive review before finally being published. but listing it shows that you've tested out some research hypothesis far enough out to generate some publishable data and that is to be commended. i'm not sure who gave you this impression, but it's not lying about your credentials and it is in no way misrepresenting what you've done. if you clearly state that your manuscript is "submitted " or "in progress", i fail to see how that is being dishonest in any way. if PDs want to dismiss research that hasn't actually gone to press at the time you submit ERAS, that is their choice (and frankly i don't see that happening), but you have every right to list a manuscript that is in the final stages of being nearly-published.

 

[Hurricane]

you're being unnecessarily harsh. the truth is, it is not unusual at all for people to list submitted manuscripts and even legitimate manuscripts-in-progress on CVs. i wouldn't endorse listing a "future" manuscript as a "manuscript in progress" if you haven't even begun work on writing it up. but every PI i have ever worked for (multiple throughout college, graduate school, and med school) has encouraged me to list submitted manuscripts on my CV and they in fact do it themselves. in fact i did it on my med school applications and my submitted work was fodder for interview discussion just as much as my officially published work--my interviewers wanted to hear all about it. it's not "fluff" and it's definitely not some sneaky way to "beat the system", in your words--as another poster mentioned, it's not your fault that it hasn't been published in time for your ERAS application. every person who reads through your application is aware that the potential exists for your manuscript to be rejected or undergo extensive review before finally being published. but listing it shows that you've tested out some research hypothesis far enough out to generate some publishable data and that is to be commended. i'm not sure who gave you this impression, but it's not lying about your credentials and it is in no way misrepresenting what you've done. if you clearly state that your manuscript is "submitted " or "in progress", i fail to see how that is being dishonest in any way. if PDs want to dismiss research that hasn't actually gone to press at the time you submit ERAS, that is their choice (and frankly i don't see that happening), but you have every right to list a manuscript that is in the final stages of being nearly-published.

👍

Exactly. In academia it is quite common to list manuscripts that in press, submitted, and even in preparation on one's CV. You are not misrepresenting yourself if you do this; on the contrary, you're selling yourself short if you don't.

I got a related question on this. I submitted a case report for publication about a month ago. I asked my PI about if I should list it under research or pubs. He said under pubs with the statement of "In press" or something like that.

Where exactly would I put that? In the title? I know the journal name but not positive about what issue it'll be out in.

If it has been accepted, put the journal title and then put "in press" where the date goes. If it has been submitted, but not yet accepted, put "submitted" in the space for the title (i.e. do not list the journal title).

 

[p53]

PDs use ERAS and Interviews to gauge your honesty and integrity.

👍

Exactly. In academia it is quite common to list manuscripts that in press, submitted, and even in preparation on one's CV. You are not misrepresenting yourself if you do this; on the contrary, you're selling yourself short if you don't.



If it has been accepted, put the journal title and then put "in press" where the date goes. If it has been submitted, but not yet accepted, put "submitted" in the space for the title (i.e. do not list the journal title).

ERAS has separate sections to "sell" yourself so it is apples and oranges. Sell yourself on the research section. Don't post submitted papers under "publications". Publications means it is PUBLISHED. This is a lie. Period.

 

[p53]

You guys are missing the point. I am not saying that you should not include submitted papers on ERAS just put it under the research section as submitted.

There are two sections on ERAS
1) Research
2) Publications

You have to put papers that have not been published under research. This includes papers. Publications means that is published. If it is submitted by definition it is NOT published.

You guys can say that I am harsh but in reality program directors read submitted under publications and they see it as a misrepresentation. They are the ones that are HARSH. Why risk your application with this misrepresentation?

As for the argument that it is not published in time for ERAS thus it isn't your fault (this doesn't justify lying). If you read my comments carefully it states that once it is accepted that you should personally email the programs to tell them it was accepted. Furthermore, less than 50% of all submitted papers are NOT ACCEPTED. So you can't assume that it will be published by putting it under publications.

We can argue this back and forth. Just remember anyone that is going to risk putting "submitted papers" and "presentations that are not research related" under publications is going to be exposed by PDs. PDs have information to gauge your knowledge and work ethic (Board Exams and Class rank) however they don't have anything to gauge integrity and honesty. Thus they scrutinize applications and ask you tough questions during interview day to see if you are honest and trustworthy.

Putting down "submitted papers" under publications is a white lie (but still a lie). The program directors will know you are trying to fill up that section to make yourself look good. They will make a conclusion on your character. Just be honest on ERAS. ERAS is not the time to put "fluff" and cast a bad light. This is your career on the line. From a PD's eye it is better to have a blank section with honesty than having "publications" when they know you are misrepresenting. You guys argue that you should "sell" yourself. Just answer this question. Why misrepresent when the person that you are trying to "sell" knows that "submitted papers" don't fall under "publications". At worst you will look like a liar, at best you will look like an idiot that doesn't know what "publications" means.

PDS are hypersensitive about misrepresentation. They see you coming a mile away. Don't risk it.

 

[Long Dong]

From page 6 of the application right under the publication heading it says:

"(Include Abstracts, Poster Sessions, Invited National or Regional Presentations)

This page allows entries for each of your publications. Complete the required fields and Save. The page will refresh to allow additional entries."

 

[grit]

You guys are missing the point. I am not saying that you should not include submitted papers on ERAS just put it under the research section as submitted.

There are two sections on ERAS
1) Research
2) Publications

You have to put papers that have not been published under research. This includes papers. Publications means that is published. If it is submitted by definition it is NOT published.

You guys can say that I am harsh but in reality program directors read submitted under publications and they see it as a misrepresentation. They are the ones that are HARSH. Why risk your application with this misrepresentation?

As for the argument that it is not published in time for ERAS thus it isn't your fault (this doesn't justify lying). If you read my comments carefully it states that once it is accepted that you should personally email the programs to tell them it was accepted. Furthermore, less than 50% of all submitted papers are NOT ACCEPTED. So you can't assume that it will be published by putting it under publications.

We can argue this back and forth. Just remember anyone that is going to risk putting "submitted papers" and "presentations that are not research related" under publications is going to be exposed by PDs. PDs have information to gauge your knowledge and work ethic (Board Exams and Class rank) however they don't have anything to gauge integrity and honesty. Thus they scrutinize applications and ask you tough questions during interview day to see if you are honest and trustworthy.

Putting down "submitted papers" under publications is a white lie (but still a lie). The program directors will know you are trying to fill up that section to make yourself look good. They will make a conclusion on your character. Just be honest on ERAS. ERAS is not the time to put "fluff" and cast a bad light. This is your career on the line. From a PD's eye it is better to have a blank section with honesty than having "publications" when they know you are misrepresenting. You guys argue that you should "sell" yourself. Just answer this question. Why misrepresent when the person that you are trying to "sell" knows that "submitted papers" don't fall under "publications". At worst you will look like a liar, at best you will look like an idiot that doesn't know what "publications" means.

PDS are hypersensitive about misrepresentation. They see you coming a mile away. Don't risk it.

perhaps i should have been more clear in my post above, but it is completely appropriate to list submitted manuscripts under the "publications" section of one's CV as well as on ERAS. this is standard practice in academia, so i am unsure how you can continue to argue against this. i fail to see what makes it perfectly OK for CV's in "real life" but not for ERAS. what you list or don't list and where you list it isn't some kind of secret moral test to PDs to gauge your integrity (?!), especially when it is entirely appropriate to do this. sure, you can list under "research" that a manuscript is in the works, but it is completely 100% proper to list it under "publications". "misrepresentation" would be making something up. again, if you clearly state that the manuscript is "submitted" or "in progress" you are in no way lying about the research you've done, as you are plainly stating for everyone to see that it hasn't gone to press yet. your post is so over-the-top paranoid that i don't know what else to say. again, it is perfectly standard and 100% appropriate to list submitted manuscripts under "publications." and, as pointed out by someone else, you can include such efforts as poster presentations which may not even be published in the near future at all.

 

[p53]

perhaps i should have been more clear in my post above, but it is completely appropriate to list submitted manuscripts under the "publications" section of one's CV as well as on ERAS. this is standard practice in academia, so i am unsure how you can continue to argue against this. i fail to see what makes it perfectly OK for CV's in "real life" but not for ERAS. what you list or don't list and where you list it isn't some kind of secret moral test to PDs to gauge your integrity (?!), especially when it is entirely appropriate to do this. sure, you can list under "research" that a manuscript is in the works, but it is completely 100% proper to list it under "publications". "misrepresentation" would be making something up. again, if you clearly state that the manuscript is "submitted" or "in progress" you are in no way lying about the research you've done, as you are plainly stating for everyone to see that it hasn't gone to press yet. your post is so over-the-top paranoid that i don't know what else to say. again, it is perfectly standard and 100% appropriate to list submitted manuscripts under "publications." and, as pointed out by someone else, you can include such efforts as poster presentations which may not even be published in the near future at all.

What part of less than 50% of submitted papers get published do you not understand? If it doesn't get accepted it never goes to the press. 🙄 As you mentioned you can put these submitted papers under research (thus you will receive credit for a paper, that is what really matters right?) why put it under PUBLICATIONS?

Publications means that it is printed. Get it? There is no gray area? It is not appropriate to put "submitted" papers under PUBLICATIONS because it hasn't been published.

"misrepresentation" would be making something up.

As for your comment about misrepresenting, You need to look up the word Misrepresent in a dictionary. You are confusing it with the word FABRICATE.

Bottomline: The PDs go by my definition of Publication and they will read your "submitted" paper with skepticism. There is a reason there are TWO sections (Reseach and Publiciations). You can keep arguing until your face turns blue or you develop carpal tunnel. The fact is that anyone that posts "submitted" papers under PUBLICATIONS rather than under Research is taking a RISK. Why take the risk? Do you think a PD will think less of your reseach because it is in the "research" section rather than the publication section?

You will receive credit for your paper under the heading "Research" so why misrepresent? It is that simple.

PDs scrutinize applications to separate people. Don't take a risk. It is not worth it.

 

[grit]

What part of less than 50% of submitted papers get published do you not understand? If it doesn't get accepted it never goes to the press. 🙄 As you mentioned you can put these submitted papers under research (thus you will receive credit for a paper, that is what really matters right?) why put it under PUBLICATIONS?

Publications means that it is printed. Get it? There is no gray area? It is not appropriate to put "submitted" papers under PUBLICATIONS because it hasn't been published.




As for your comment about misrepresenting, You need to look up the word Misrepresent in a dictionary. You are confusing it with the word FABRICATE.

Bottomline: The PDs go by my definition of Publication and they will read your "submitted" paper with skepticism. There is a reason there are TWO sections (Reseach and Publiciations). You can keep arguing until your face turns blue or you develop carpal tunnel. The fact is that anyone that posts "submitted" papers under PUBLICATIONS rather than under Research is taking a RISK. Why take the risk? Do you think a PD will think less of your reseach because it is in the "research" section rather than the publication section?

You will receive credit for your paper under the heading "Research" so why misrepresent? It is that simple.

PDs scrutinize applications to separate people. Don't take a risk. It is not worth it.

your posts are getting pretty condescending. it's not necessary.

under the "research" section of ERAS, i described the labs i've worked in, the specific roles i've played, as well as any clinical projects i've worked on--basically where i describe my research experiences in detail. the "publications" section is where i list the fruits of these efforts, just like my CV in real life. contrary to what you keep stating, per ERAS, the "publications" section isn't just for PUBLISHED articles--this is where we can list oral presentations, poster sessions, etc, just like on a "real" CV, so yes, in fact there IS a gray area. a submitted manuscript is a 1000 steps closer to being published than a poster which may never actually lead to a published manuscript, yet to you it's OK for a poster to be listed here but not a submitted manuscript? have you really truly contacted every PD to know for sure that your definition is in line with theirs, as you confidently state above? if this is really true, then PDs have suddenly decided to go against the norm of what is commonly understood when a manuscript is listed as "submitted." everyone who reads your application or CV will know that a "submitted" manuscript may never actually be published in the end, worst case scenario. but there are many factors that play into this (scooped by other researchers in the same field, submission to an inappropriate journal, etc, etc) and you would be doing yourself a disservice by not listing it. and again, it's perfectly fine for it to go under "publications".

bottom line is that it is perfectly 100% appropriate to list a submitted manuscript under "publications." this is what is done in real life and it is perfectly appropriate in real life, so why not on ERAS? please explain to me how there are different rules for ERAS than for the rest of the research world. you are in no way misrepresenting yourself if you plainly state that it is "submitted" or "in press" or "in progress." sure, you can list it under "research" if it makes you happy, but it's entirely appropriate to list it under "publications". seriously, how is it a risk? i can't even fathom how this is taking a risk in any way when this is how it's done in real life. no one is going to throw your application in the trash or somehow think you're of low moral character. this is so bizarre.

 

[RastaMan]

I had the same question when applying for the match last year, and asked the staff at our student affairs office what to do. They instructed me to list papers close to completion or in submission under the PUBLICATIONS section.

Our school also provided us with a sample CV that lists publications in the following format:
1) Papers that are in the final stages of preparation but not submitted = "in preparation"
2) Submitted papers that haven't been accepted or rejected yet = "XYZ journal. Submitted April 2006."
3) Paper that have been accepted but not yet published (lag time is often 6 months after acceptance) = "XYZ Journal. Accepted May 2006."

During the interview trail, my research was often a topic of discussion. One of my papers actually got accepted during interview season so I let the interviewers know of the change if the topic arose. At no point was there any question that I had done something dishonest or misrepresented myself.

Bottom line, papers in submission go under publications, and not under research.

 

[p53]

The staff at Student Affairs Offices are just as clueless or more so than medical students. They get paid $10.00 an hour to upload ERAS, do paperwork, and schedule meetings. They are not in the job of helping people match and most don't even have college degrees. Thus, their say is not worth much. Go to the people that read the ERAS like I did.

I have talked to 3 different program directors in person about this. One in Radiology, one on Orthopedics, and one in Dermatology. Each one of them have told me to list only verifiable papers via pubmed on the publications section. They can and WILL look up this stuff. Furthermore, for the poster and research presentations the dermatology and radiology attending told me to bring papers from the presentations during the interview because they will ask you questions about research and this will also verify your presentations that you list.

That is the difference. A poster session, research presentation, and published research can be proved. A submitted paper can't be proved. For example, my research presentation at RSNA is inside the program guide. Furthermore, as the Dermatology attending told me that since derm is so competitive that people fabricate (not misrepresent 😀 ) research under the term "submitted" then when they are called on it, they say the research was not accepted. This is the reason program directors are hypersensitive to "misrepresentation" (especially in competitive specialties). That is why the term "submitted" should not go under publication. It doesn't mean squat and the purpose is to fill up space under the publications section. Program directors will see right through this trick and question your motive.

If you don't believe me go talk to the program directors in your interested field NOT the secretaries that don't have college degrees.

 

[RastaMan]

One more thing:
Papers getting rejected are commonplace in academia. This is often because it is standard practice to submit to the most prestigious journal you think you have a shot at. Prestige by the way, is gauged by the number of impact points the author gains by publication. Eg - NEJM = 24 points, JAMA = 20 points, Heart = 3 points. Your total number of impact points determine tenure, promotion, etc.

If a paper is rejected by NEJM for instance, the author would then resubmit to JAMA, and then to Heart. If you get a rejection after submitting ERAS and the topic arises during interviews, mention that the paper was rejected by X journal, so now we are planning to resubmit to Y journal. No lies, no misrepresentation, no selling yourself short.

 

[p53]

sure, you can list it under "research" if it makes you happy, but it's entirely appropriate to list it under "publications". seriously, how is it a risk? i can't even fathom how this is taking a risk in any way when this is how it's done in real life. no one is going to throw your application in the trash or somehow think you're of low moral character. this is so bizarre.

It is a risk because submitted papers are NOT publications. Program directors know this fact.

As for your careless attempt at hyperbole, we both know that I am not saying that PDs will think that you are trash or low moral character. What I am saying is that you should not draw negative attention to your application with something that is completely false.

Think of another way that a PD will test your integrity besides your ERAS application and interviews? Besides interviews are only one day and everyone will be on their best behavior. Thus, the only way programs really test honesty and integrity is by ERAS. Don't post misleading statements in here. Period.

List your papers that are submitted under "research" because it hasn't been published. As for posters and research presentations these are indeed published because they are in the program guide for the research meeting.

 

[p53]

One more thing:
Papers getting rejected are commonplace in academia. This is often because it is standard practice to submit to the most prestigious journal you think you have a shot at. Prestige by the way, is gauged by the number of impact points the author gains by publication. Eg - NEJM = 24 points, JAMA = 20 points, Heart = 3 points. Your total number of impact points determine tenure, promotion, etc.

If a paper is rejected by NEJM for instance, the author would then resubmit to JAMA, and then to Heart. If you get a rejection after submitting ERAS and the topic arises during interviews, mention that the paper was rejected by X journal, so now we are planning to resubmit to Y journal. No lies, no misrepresentation, no selling yourself short.

You are not lying but what about the 5 other people that are lying but are using the same alibi to get into Derm? Talk is cheap. It is about perception. Just post the paper under "research" and there is zero percent chance someone will question your attempt to post something that doesn't qualify under publication on your ERAS to falsely elevate your CV.

 

[RastaMan]

p53, why are you so militant about this non-issue that you resort to demeaning the rather helpful staff at our student affairs office?

BTW, I brought up the issue during a meeting that included one of our medical school deans. Also, as I said before we had a sample CV that helped us through the process.

If you have a moral objection to listing submitted publications under research, fine. I'm glad I trusted our dean, the student affairs staff and the sample CV they provided over one med student with a mission.

Oh yeah, and I also listed articles I published in lay magazines. Not sure you can find those in pubmed, but I have the paper they were printed on to prove it was a publication.

 

[p53]

Look man. Everyone is playing a game.

1. Office Staff - get the paperwork done in time
2. Dean - write up the dean's letter and appear student friendly
3. You - be honest in your ERAS application
4. Program Director - find the right fit which includes work ethic, integrity, greate interpersonal skills etc.

Of these 4 people do you think the office staff or Dean has any insight on how to MATCH? They are on the same side of the fence as you are on. The only opinion that matters is the program director's opinion because they are the ones scrutinizing your application and hiring you.

 

[Long Dong]

One more time for those who missed it. According to the heading under publications on MyERAS it says:

"(Include Abstracts, Poster Sessions, Invited National or Regional Presentations)"

 

[p53]

One more time for those that scored less than a 8 on the Verbal Section on the MCAT. Research presentations, Poster Presentations, and Abstracts are published and verifiable in the booklet at the corresponding meetings. Submitted research is not verifiable.

 

[Long Dong]

One more time for those that scored less than a 8 on the Verbal Section on the MCAT. Research presentations, Poster Presentations, and Abstracts are published and verifiable in the booklet at the corresponding meetings. Submitted research is not verifiable.

Hey are you talking to me cause I scored a 7 on the verbal section. Engrish is my second language.😀

 

[Mom2five]

Hi noticed the debate and wanted to get opinions on this...

I'm working on Husband's application (yeah for me...)

He worked at an Eye Bank and was a Coordinator for a Cornea Study. The journal is "Cornea, The Journal of Cornea and External Disease"....the article is "Clinical Profile and Early Surgical Complications in the Cornea Donor Study". He was Not an author, the lead authors and contributors were all M.D. or PhDs.

Anway, his name IS listed under the participating Eye Banks as a "coordinator". So his name is in a journal but is that lame? He thinks it should be under research experience on ERAS. I don't know how most people would list this. And I would rather be on the cautious side but wouldn't want to devalue it either.

 

[Impressions]

Misrepresentation of research criteria by orthopaedic residency applicants.Dale JA, Schmitt CM, Crosby LA.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chattanooga Unit of the College of Medicine, University of Tennessee, Memphis 37403, USA.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that applicants for postgraduate training may misrepresent research citations. We evaluated the research citations that were identified in a review of the Publications and Work and Research sections from the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) data for all applicants to our orthopaedic residency program for the 1998 to 1999 academic year. METHODS: The citations were searched for on Medline. We initially used the name of the first author, then the name of the applicant, the name of the journal, the volume number, the issue number, and the page numbers. When a journal was not listed in Medline, an interlibrary search was instituted with use of the same format. When no match was made for any category, the citation was defined as misrepresented. Point estimates are reported as percentages. RESULTS: Publications were listed on sixty-four (30.0 percent) of 213 applications. One hundred and thirty-eight publications were cited; there were fifteen citations (10.9 percent) to book chapters, twenty-six (18.8 percent) to journals not listed in Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory, and twenty-one (15.2 percent) to articles listed as in press, in print, or submitted for publication. Seventy-six articles that had been cited as appearing in journals listed in Ulrich's Directory were checked and verified. Fourteen (18 percent) of these seventy-six publications were misrepresented. Misrepresentations included citations of nonexistent articles in actual journals and nonauthorship of existing articles. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that publications listed on postgraduate applications should be scrutinized carefully. Copies of cited publications should be required by residency programs before applications are considered complete. The importance of professionalism needs to be emphasized in the curricula of medical schools. Residency training programs should develop guidelines regarding misrepresentation.

 

[Wahoo]

Actually according to your link only manuscripts and abstracts should be included in ERAS. It only specifies that presentations should be for the interviews.

Bottomline: Only include verified published research on ERAS under publication. Every year students try to beat the system but it can't be beat because you are dealing with a program director that has a scrutinizing eye.

Why risk it?

Every program that you apply to on ERAS, the corresponding program director that reads your ERAS will know it is fluff.

Did you notice the publications on the bottom of your link. I guarantee the program directors are looking for people trying to "misrepresent" their ERA application.

From you link below.

Gurudevan SV, Mower WR: Misrepresentation of research publications among emergency medicine residency applicants. Ann Emerg Med March 1996;27:327-330

Knopp RK: Misrepresentation of resident credentials. Ann Emerg Med March 1996;27:366-367


If you misrepresent you are screwed (i.e. submitted papers on publications). Only include published research on publications.

Did you actually read the information at the link? Here it is again for those who missed it: http://www.cordem.org/citation.htm
It specifically states:

1. Published manuscript: list citation
2. Accepted (in press) manuscripts: list date of acceptance
3. Submitted manuscripts: list date of submission
4. Research experience (in progress): list dates of research

So, at least if you are applying in EM, you should list submitted manuscripts, accepted articles, and published articles. Presentations should also be listed assuming the abstract was published, but "abstract" should be noted in parentheses after the title.

Obviously you should not misrepresent your work, and you should be able to back up any claims you make.

 

[Pox in a box]

Each one of them have told me to list only verifiable papers via pubmed on the publications section. They can and WILL look up this stuff.

PDs also know that PubMed isn't the only research database retrieval system. It's actually pretty limited.

 

[Hurricane]

p53 why are you so passionate about this particular issue?

I have personally laid eyes on the CVs of many academia bigwigs, and they have both submitted and in press manuscripts listed as publications, just like everyone else in academia. So it's ok for a Nobel laureate to list a submitted manuscipt, but it's moral turpitude if a residency applicant does it?

Perhaps you're right and Derm PDs have become CV nazis and have come up with their own criteria for what one should list as a publication. If so, they're the exception rather than the rule. But it's good to know if certain specialties are holding applicants to higher standards than the rest of the academic world, so thanks for the info.

FWIW, I included some submitted and in press manuscripts in ERAS, and still managed to match at my #1 in a research track. But then again, we psychiatrists are shifty and not to be trusted 😉

 

[p53]

p53 why are you so passionate about this particular issue?

I have personally laid eyes on the CVs of many academia bigwigs, and they have both submitted and in press manuscripts listed as publications, just like everyone else in academia. So it's ok for a Nobel laureate to list a submitted manuscipt, but it's moral turpitude if a residency applicant does it?

Perhaps you're right and Derm PDs have become CV nazis and have come up with their own criteria for what one should list as a publication. If so, they're the exception rather than the rule. But it's good to know if certain specialties are holding applicants to higher standards than the rest of the academic world, so thanks for the info.

FWIW, I included some submitted and in press manuscripts in ERAS, and still managed to match at my #1 in a research track. But then again, we psychiatrists are shifty and not to be trusted 😉

Because I don't want SDN members to get hosed. Why take that risk.

It is not just Derm. I had a chance to read the article on Ortho in this thread so I did a little homework on pubmed. There were many specialties with papers that talked about "misrepresentation on ERAS". This included pediatrics and surgery. Most of the articles mentioned that PDs should scrutnize the publication section for "misrepresentation". If you don't believe me go to Pubmed and type misrepresentation and residency. You will see what I saw. Most if not all specialties have PDs that will analyze this section very carefully for inaccuracies because of the increase in dishonesty on ERAs in the current literature such as Academic Medicine.

I'm just saying it is not a fight worth taking because the submitted research can be placed in the reseach heading and there will be a zero percent chance that a scrutnizing PD will think negatively of it.

To be honest, if it is "submitted" it doesn't really mean much under publications (PDs don't count submitted papers regardless of where you put it) so you are only risking the fact that the program director will think negatively of you.

You will get CREDIT for the research under a different heading so there is no reason you should risk anything.

I'm done with this debate. We have all said our piece. It is up to each individual applicant to put down what they want. The point is that it is stupid to risk something for something that will not enhance your application.

My recommendation is to put your submitted research under the "research" heading, and be able to talk about it thoroughly for your interview.

 

[blanche]

although people seem to have differing opinions, I appreicate the info that's been put out here....it's better to be informed than not.

I have a another question along these publication lines...

My name was included on a poster that was presented at a national meeting, because I was involved with the project (although my original research had little to do with the poster, nor did I create the poster itself..) Furthermore, I didn't even get funding to attend the meeting.
Is it allright to include this on my ERAS anyways, since my name was on the poster (and in the meeting brochure)?
It kindof goes along these lines of questionable inclusions, I guess..
Thanks!!

 

[grit]

It is not just Derm. I had a chance to read the article on Ortho in this thread so I did a little homework on pubmed. There were many specialties with papers that talked about "misrepresentation on ERAS". This included pediatrics and surgery. Most of the articles mentioned that PDs should scrutnize the publication section for "misrepresentation". If you don't believe me go to Pubmed and type misrepresentation and residency. You will see what I saw. Most if not all specialties have PDs that will analyze this section very carefully for inaccuracies because of the increase in dishonesty on ERAs in the current literature such as Academic Medicine.

i was curious myself, so i too did a search on pubmed (and pubmed only) about misrepresentation in applications. there were a variety of abstracts detailing "misrepresentation" of publication records in several different fields (mostly surgical, it seemed), and while i didn't read beyond the abstracts, most discussed people listing citations for journals that didn't exist (!), applicants moving themselves up on the authorship list, listing publications that where they didn't even share authorship at all (!!), or other crazy nonsense like that. this would most definitely be misrepresentation and frankly i'm surprised someone would have the balls to try something like this. clearly this is wrong, whereas listing a submitted manuscript under "publications" in ERAS is perfectly legitimate. but i also came across the following abstract that counteracted virtually all of these other studies which relied on medline and medline only to doublecheck applicants' publication records:

Minimal prevalence of authorship misrepresentation among internal medicine residency applicants: do previous estimates of "misrepresentation" represent insufficient case finding?

Hebert RS, Smith CG, Wright SM.
John Hopkins Bayview Medical Center and Harrison Medical Library, John Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. [email protected]

BACKGROUND: High rates of authorship misrepresentation have been documented among medical trainees. OBJECTIVE: To assess misrepresentation among internal medicine residency applicants while comparing searches used by previous authors (searches 1 and 2) to a more comprehensive strategy (search 3). DESIGN: Review of 497 residency applications. SETTING: Two university-based internal medicine residency programs. MEASUREMENTS: Search 1 was limited to MEDLINE. Search 2 added Current Contents, Science Citation Index, and BIOSIS and included searching journals by hand. Search 3 added seven other databases and contacts to librarians, editors, and coauthors. RESULTS: 224 applicants reported 634 articles; 630 (99%) were verified. The number of applicants with misrepresented citations varied depending on the search used (56 applicants [25%] in search 1 vs. 34 applicants [15%] in search 2 vs. 4 applicants [1.8%] in search 3). CONCLUSIONS: Using a comprehensive search, we found substantially less misrepresentation than had been reported. Previous studies probably overestimated the magnitude of the problem.

interesting. make of it what you will. i'm not losing any sleep over the fact that i listed a few "in progress", "submitted", and "in press" manuscripts under "publications" in my application.

 

[grit]

although people seem to have differing opinions, I appreicate the info that's been put out here....it's better to be informed than not.

I have a another question along these publication lines...

My name was included on a poster that was presented at a national meeting, because I was involved with the project (although my original research had little to do with the poster, nor did I create the poster itself..) Furthermore, I didn't even get funding to attend the meeting.
Is it allright to include this on my ERAS anyways, since my name was on the poster (and in the meeting brochure)?
It kindof goes along these lines of questionable inclusions, I guess..
Thanks!!

you're good. this isn't a questionable inclusion at all. you contributed to the research and your name was on the poster, so it's a "legitimate" poster for you to list on your CV even if you didn't actually attend the conference (not uncommon--i haven't attended many of the conferences where i had posters simply because it costs $$$ that we often didn't have). hope this helps.

 

[blanche]

you're good. this isn't a questionable inclusion at all. you contributed to the research and your name was on the poster, so it's a "legitimate" poster for you to list on your CV even if you didn't actually attend the conference (not uncommon--i haven't attended many of the conferences where i had posters simply because it costs $$$ that we often didn't have). hope this helps.

it does, thanks!

 

[gizzard]

I agree with Hurricane and others that a lot of researchers put submitted manuscripts on their CVs. I have noticed that it is extremely common on grant applications and in junior people looking for their first faculty positions. They'll put "Cell, submitted" next to a few papers. They hope that these submitted papers indicate their potential as future faculty, when I suspect only papers in print do (and evidence that they can function independently).

The fact is that anybody can submit a paper to Cell (or whatever), including people who's work is very good and people who's work sucks. Often, papers are submitted to certain higher-impact journals just to see if they'll "stick." It's always worth a shot to shoot high. Let's face it, publishing in a Nature subspecialty journal (for example) is a crapshoot, so why not roll the dice. There simply isn't room in these journals to publish all the quality manuscripts they receive, but you never know what side of the fence you'll fall on. You also can't predict which reviewing editor you might get or who your reviewers are; you might get lucky and get a friend. Chairpeople, and PDs probably, know this reality, so I don't think they would have a gut-driven negative reaction towards the "submitted" citations.

I disagree with the suggestion by p53 that PDs will somehow automatically frown upon you if you put submitted manuscripts on your CV. Now, it's certainly more likely to cause a negative reaction if ALL your mansucripts are only submitted, or if you somehow got three submitted papers from a two month summer rotation or something. If you have other manuscripts that you have already published (in a somewhat related area), I can't see how submitted manuscripts would hurt you.

Of course, all this is really only meaningful for the PDs that use publications as a screen for interviews. They obviously would be pissed with misrepresented manuscripts. For the others, if you misrepresent your work on ERAS, you had better be able to talk about your research in great depth, submitted or otherwise, or you will be caught.

 

[p53]

Last word on this thread. I will not reply on this thread.

Once again. People's opinion on here doesn't mean crap. Go talk to the PDs in the specialty that you are applying to for residency.

If you don't have time to talk to the PD than it is smart to play it safe. 11% of all applicants are listed for misrepresentation per pubmed (hence are ranked much lower on the ROL). If you stay conservative you won't be one of them.

 

[O'doyleRules]

P53 is right, and if you all don't believe him/her then you are just shooting yourself in the foot. I asked my DEAN what exactly should go in this section, and it is only for those published and at the very least in press. Everything else goes in the "Research" section. There is a reason that there is a "date" part of this.

By beefing up your publications section with "in preparation" or "submitted" manuscripts, you are being devious and are in the wrong. PDs WILL judge you based on this -- they know all the tricks of medical students already. If you have real research experience, that will shine through in your application, and you don't have to misrepresent your experience on your applications. People I know with real research experience (not just the writing up of the fourth year case reports) are only putting published items on this list. If you have more publications than they do, that is fishy no?

The fact that people list these on their CV (as I do) means nothing in putting them on an ERAS application. If I were a PD, much as P53 has indicated, I would judge people negatively for trying to make this section look bigger than it really is. There is nothing worse in residency who thinks that they can bend the rules as they see fit for their own advancement😱 .

IMHO

 

[deleted113029]

I hate to be the voice of reason on here, but the fact is that residency directors can sense BS or fluff to make it seem like you have done research.

Just remember it is these people's job to scrutinize applications and look for embellishment. They do it year in and year out. Go ahead and risk putting speaking engagements under research or submitted research under publications. The fact is that publications means it is published. There is no gray area. If it is submitted put the research under "research" not publications. If it becomes published later in the year than update programs of this information by email.

Your crafty methods of shining light will be looked upon by a program director as being disingenous. That is the last impression you would want to make on a residency application. One of the residency director's main job is to have the right people (people with honesty and integrity) in the program, do you really think you can outsmart someone like that by putting down fluff?

I personally would leave the publications and/or research section blank than have even the slightest impression that I am dishonest. You are dealing with some very smart people that are looking for ways to separate applicants. Dishonesty is the quickest way to make an average applicant fall off the program director's rank list.

🙄 I vaguely remember someone making a big fuss about their step 1 scores a long time ago. They even wrote a diary before they took it...hmmm...but didn't bother divulging the score. And you are giving us a speech on dishonesty and integrity? please!

To the OP, write down the journal you submitted the paper to, but leave all manuscripts in progress out of it...as most everyone has already said.

 

[allylz]

hey there:

I wanted to weigh in briefly. p53 is not the only one who has talked to faculty - I am applying to EM and consulted with a faculty member in our EM program who reads all EM applicants' ERAS apps before we send it in. He's been doing this for like 25 years.

He has consistently told me to include everything I possibly can. And I don't really have experience in bench research type of stuff - I'm into international health, so I've done invited national presentations at conventions on international health. I have included those, and they definitely can't be listed under 'Research' - they're not based on research, they're invited national presentations based on my international health work. Any program director who can't appreciate that I plan to be a leader in international health and not in bench research probably isn't the kind of program director whose program I want to be in. I also have an article I'm co-authoring that I successfully pitched to the PLoS Medicine Student Forum, which clearly doesn't fit in the 'experience' section - the article is in preparation but the abstract has been accepted and reviewed by the peer review process of PLoS, and it is not 'Research' so I can't list it as a 'Research Experience'. The bottom line is it's a standardized application, so you need to be a little creative to use it if you're not a standard applicant. But I'd like to think that my experience might be more interesting than someone's random article on the effects of drug administration on neurons in the cingulate cortex of rabbits, or whatever the heck it is that other people do.

My EM mentor also recommended that I include my published poetry from our medical center's literary journal. I'm not sure if I'm going to do that yet, but there are clearly several ways you can interpret these things. Publications don't have to be research publications, invited national and regional presentations don't have to be research presentations, etc.... just because the majority of medical students don't have the ability to make national presentations on anything other than research, or publish anything other than research, doesn't mean that you can't use the application to showcase your talents. Research is not the only thing in this world that is relevant to your career as a physician, in the real world things like public health, international health, and other such interests can add to your success, so why not on your residency application?

 

[p53]

hey there:

I wanted to weigh in briefly. p53 is not the only one who has talked to faculty - I am applying to EM and consulted with a faculty member in our EM program who reads all EM applicants' ERAS apps before we send it in. He's been doing this for like 25 years.

He has consistently told me to include everything I possibly can. And I don't really have experience in bench research type of stuff - I'm into international health, so I've done invited national presentations at conventions on international health. I have included those, and they definitely can't be listed under 'Research' - they're not based on research, they're invited national presentations based on my international health work. Any program director who can't appreciate that I plan to be a leader in international health and not in bench research probably isn't the kind of program director whose program I want to be in. I also have an article I'm co-authoring that I successfully pitched to the PLoS Medicine Student Forum, which clearly doesn't fit in the 'experience' section - the article is in preparation but the abstract has been accepted and reviewed by the peer review process of PLoS, and it is not 'Research' so I can't list it as a 'Research Experience'. The bottom line is it's a standardized application, so you need to be a little creative to use it if you're not a standard applicant. But I'd like to think that my experience might be more interesting than someone's random article on the effects of drug administration on neurons in the cingulate cortex of rabbits, or whatever the heck it is that other people do.

My EM mentor also recommended that I include my published poetry from our medical center's literary journal. I'm not sure if I'm going to do that yet, but there are clearly several ways you can interpret these things. Publications don't have to be research publications, invited national and regional presentations don't have to be research presentations, etc.... just because the majority of medical students don't have the ability to make national presentations on anything other than research, or publish anything other than research, doesn't mean that you can't use the application to showcase your talents. Research is not the only thing in this world that is relevant to your career as a physician, in the real world things like public health, international health, and other such interests can add to your success, so why not on your residency application?

Let's go back to square one.

Why is showing research or publications important on one's application?


Correct Answer: Publications are important for those that are shooting for the top academic programs. Why? Because it shows academic potential to REMAIN in academia (a commitment to the field). The top programs in all specialties from Anesthesiology to Urology tend to be university affiliated programs. Their goal is to train future academic attendings as leaders in the field. They are assuming if you have reseach publications in medical school you will have research publications as a resident and/or attending. Thus, they are seeking people that have had MEANINGFUL reseach experience in medical school because they will be more likely to continue research as a resident and bring NIH grant money as an attending.

Allylz you make some good points. Reseach by itself does not necessarily make you a better future ED physician, but nor does studying international health.

Rather than trying to enhance your profile by putting down fluff, consider from the PDs point of view. Why is research important in the 1st place. It is not because it will make you a better resident, it is because you will be more likely to stay in academic practice than community practice. By putting down poetry in the publication section does not address the issue. This makes you seem as you don't know what game is being played. The game the PD directors are looking for in research and publications is to ascertain the likeilhood that you will remain in academia.

For the rest of you out there. If you want to play the game to MATCH at the top programs the currency is publications. For the rest of the people that are in the middle of their class sweating over not having anything to put on the publications, why worry? The publications game is not for your benefit. Be true to yourself. If you envision yourself practicing outside of academia in the future, what is the purpose of stuffing the publications section? Both you and the PDs that read it know it is just a thinly veiled attempt to "sell" yourself. Thus, it does not enhance your application one bit. Having publications is kind of like Junior AOA. Not many medical students can have legitimate publications so it is actually the norm for most students to have nothing in the publications section. Don't let your insecurity stretch the truth under the rationalization that it is a way to sell myself.

To answer the previous question, for anything else that doesn't fit. The HodgePodge area is Volunteering. Since you are not paid, you can put almost anything in here, and you will receive credit.

Before you go overboard. Rule #1 since Program Directors are very busy (From ERAS)....List only experience that you believe is relevant to your application

One last comment. We can talk to the Dean, Mentor, or the Priest for information and it will be to no avail. If you want legitimate answers go to the program director for your specialty. The Program Directors have meetings with one another to discuss this very subject at national conferences. They are the ones reading the CAF so why ask anyone else?

 

[filter07]

Is there a way to separate the full papers from abstracts and posters? Ideally I'd like to make it easy to see the published papers first before it gets lost with the other works.

 

[Faebinder]

Is there a way to separate the full papers from abstracts and posters? Ideally I'd like to make it easy to see the published papers first before it gets lost with the other works.

Where it says to insert journal name or meeting name or abstract name or poster name put after it in brackets (Publication) or (Poster) or (Oral Presentation) or (Movie Presentation) or (Accepted Publication In Press) or (Submitted Publication) or (Publication In Preparation) or (Abstract) or (Abstract Submitted) or whatever...

*The argument over what to put under publication continues.*

 

[fang]

Do you think patents would fit in this section? (Can't fit it in "other awards and accomplishments")... It's not a publication, but it's also not an experience.