ERAS 'Publications' Listing FAQ

[atsai3]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Here are a few guidelines regarding what can or should be represented in the various sections of your Common Application Form (CAF).

What can I list under "Peer Reviewed Journal Articles/Abstracts"?

• Articles that have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
• Abstracts that have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. (This is rare, but generally some academic societies have their abstracts published in peer-reviewed journals. For example, abstracts from the International Society for Biomedical Research on Alcoholism World Congress, September 13-16, 2010 were published in a supplement to the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. This is not a peer-reviewed venue in the traditional sense, so Still Kickin was right to express some reservations about this in another thread. If you were submitting materials for tenure, then you would not list this in any 'peer-reviewed' section of your CV. However, for the purposes of a medical student applying for residency training using the CAF, it is generally considered acceptable to list in this section.)
• For completed articles published in non-peer-reviewed venues (e.g., newspaper op-eds, Harvard Business School case studies), see below.
• For abstracts that have been 'published' not in peer-reviewed journals (e.g. conference abstract CD-ROM, conference program book, etc.) see below.

Note: 'Peer review' generally means that your article has been subjected to scrutiny by one or more referees in your field. Generally this does not include book editors (and therefore books and book chapters should not be listed in this category), newspaper and magazine editors, etc.

What can I list under "Peer Reviewed Journal Articles/Abstracts (Other than Published)"?

• Articles that have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
• Articles that have been conditionally accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
• For not-yet completed manuscripts that have been submitted for publication, not yet been submitted for publication but are intended for submission, etc., see below.

What can I list under "Poster Presentation"?

• Posters that were presented at a regional, national or international research conference. Generally this means that a physical item resembling a research poster was created, and you stood next to the poster during the poster session to discuss the work with viewers.
• Posters that were presented at a medical school 'research day' can be included here.
• Posters that you presented at a regional, national or international research conference, even if you were not listed as first author, can be included here.
• Posters that were presented by another member of your research team (i.e., not you) at a regional, national or international research conference, even if you were listed as one of the authors -- even if you were listed as first author -- should not be included here. A listing belongs here if you were the one who did the talking.

What can I list under "Oral Presentation"?

• Presentations given at a regional, national or international research conference. Generally this means that you delivered a presentation from a podium in a lecture hall.
• 'Grand Rounds' presentations (that were explicitly labeled as such) delivered at an academic medical center or community hospital can be included here. This is a nod to medical tradition, as 'Grand Rounds' presentations are typically afforded a greater degree of prestige and visibility the medical field (rightly or wrongly so).
• Other teaching presentations delivered in a relatively high-visibility setting (e.g., a presentation on ACLS as part of a training course for para-medical professionals, CME talks, a 'brown bag' seminar at a Department of Economics, etc.) can be included here.
• Presentations delivered to your hospital ward team during routine clinical care, in a journal club setting, etc. are generally not included here.

What can I list under "Other Articles"?

• Significant publications that do not belong in the other categories can be included here. For example: books, book chapters, newspaper op-eds, the American Journal of Psychiatry's "Electronic Edition for Residents", etc. If it seems weird to you that a full-length book is downgraded in the eyes of science, then that is generally an accurate description of perceptions in the field. A book is not peer reviewed and carries less weight in the academy then a body of peer-reviewed journal articles. For example, the 'intelligent design' movement is typically denigrated because it has not published in a peer reviewed venue (even though its proponents have published many very widely read books). As another example, Samantha Power won a Pulitzer Prize and National Book Critics Circle Award for her book, 'A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide', but her academic appointment is 'professor of practice' because her body of work has not been published in peer reviewed venues.

What should I list under "Research Experience"?

• This section includes all research experience. It would be appropriate to highlight work that has led to publications in any fora (peer-reviewed or not) or awards. For example, "Under the supervision of Professor XYZ, I studied the year-end transfer process of resident continuity clinic patients and the impact of a caseload construction algorithm on physician workload. For this project I conducted the chart review and implemented the statistical analyses. This work was presented at Conference XYZ (see below) and has been submitted for publication in Journal XYZ." Note here the explicit reference "see below" avoids the appearance of double-counting.
• If you were an author on research that was presented in abstract form at a conference, either as a poster or oral presentation, but you were not the presenter, then you can list the research under 'peer reviewed journal articles/abstracts' if it was published in a peer reviewed journal. If the research was not published in a peer reviewed journal (either as a full article or as an abstract), then you should not list it in any of the categories above. It would be appropriate to describe your involvement in the research project in the 'Research Experience' section.
• If you were an author on a draft manuscript that is intended for submission to a peer reviewed journal, or has been submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal, or is currently under review at a peer reviewed journal, but has not advanced further in the publication process (e.g., revise and resubmit, provisionally accepted, accepted for publication, in press, etc.) then you should not list it under 'peer reviewed journal articles'. It would be appropriate to describe your involvement in the research project in the 'Research Experience' section. For example: "Under the supervision of Professor XYZ, I studied the modulation of working memory performance in healthy volunteers with non-invasive cortical stimulation. I also regularly performed clinical assessments in the lab's clinic. We have completed a draft manuscript, "The modulation of working memory performance in children with autism", and by September we plan to submit it for publication in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders."
• Some program directors have been known to ask for any publications listed in your CAF. Therefore, if you do not yet have a draft manuscript available, then you should not describe it as a 'draft manuscript' in this section.

Other considerations

• In general, you should only include listings that you are comfortable representing as your level of involvement in a particular category.
• Be conservative in your category assignments. If you are perceived by residency application reviewers to be 'upselling', that will reflect negatively on your application.
• If you are generally curious about a category assignment, search the SDN forum archives to see if your situation has been described by another applicant in the past. If your search of the SDN forum archives does not yield any fruitful answers, consider posting a question on the SDN forum.
• If you are considering posting a question on the SDN forum because you just want to see how much upselling you can get away with, then please do not post your question.
• If you gave a (poster or oral) presentation at a conference, and the abstract corresponding to your presentation was subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal (e.g., abstracts from the Annual Scientific Meeting of the Research Society on Alcoholism), then you can list in more than one category: (a) peer reviewed journal abstracts, and (b) (poster or oral) presentations.
• If you gave a (poster or oral) presentation at a conference, and the abstract corresponding to your presentation was 'published' in a non-peer reviewed venue (such as the conference program book or CD-ROM), then see above: this would not count as a 'peer reviewed' publication, and you should not list in more than one category. (If this seems like a capricious function of the academic society's decision about whether or not to commission a journal supplement, it is. If you feel like this is 'unfair' because you don't get to list your work in the 'peer reviewed journal abstracts' section of the CAF, then get over it. Life is unfair.)

Hope this helps. Open to revising this with feedback from program directors or residents on selection committees who have experience reviewing residency applications.
-AT.

 

[gstrub]

Are you sure that if I have a paper "accepted" by a peer reviewed journal, and they tell me the publication date, but it is not yet printed, that I can't list it as a peer reviewed publication?

 

[gutonc]

Are you sure that if I have a paper "accepted" by a peer reviewed journal, and they tell me the publication date, but it is not yet printed, that I can't list it as a peer reviewed publication?

Where else would you put it? Also, if it has been accepted for publication, it's probably already available as an "Epub Ahead of Print" and is listed in PubMed and available for download. As such, it's probably kosher to even just put it in the "Peer Reviewed Journal Articles" section and be done with it. If you have a publication date (and Volume/Issue/Page #), go ahead...it's not like they're going to reject it now.

My personal belief is that, if it's indexed on PubMed, it's published and you're in the clear. I have an article that won't be physically printed until October but has been online for a month. If I was filling out ERAS right now, damn right that would be in my Publications list.

 

[atsai3]

Are you sure that if I have a paper "accepted" by a peer reviewed journal, and they tell me the publication date, but it is not yet printed, that I can't list it as a peer reviewed publication?

I agree with gutonc. Many journals will post articles online as already indexed prior to print publication. If your accepted article is indexed and showing up in PubMed as "Epub ahead of print" (and is therefore verifiable by a residency application reviewer doing a quick PubMed check), then sure, it would be reasonable to list in the 'published' section.

I would still argue that if your article is not yet indexed, even if you have a publication date, it belongs under 'other than published'. Because it has not yet been published. It might be 'soon to be published', 'in press and to be hitting the shelves next week', or even 'President Obama's mother called your mother to say that my article will be published'--but it is not yet published.

Really, if you're just facing this sort of decision, there's no need to stress about it. Any residency application reviewer will look at your application and view the two to be equivalent (i.e., "article already in print" vs. "print article just around the corner"). The guidelines I posted are intended to be conservative, to help applicants avoid the appearance of upselling.

-AT.

 

[ZagDoc]

So just to make sure, if I have a manuscript that is submitted for publication but still currently under review, I should not list it under Peer Reviewed Journal Articles/Abstracts (Other than Published)?

Only reason I ask is because I have been told otherwise by faculty in my department (granted, not the PD).

 

[atsai3]

So just to make sure, if I have a manuscript that is submitted for publication but still currently under review, I should not list it under Peer Reviewed Journal Articles/Abstracts (Other than Published)?

Only reason I ask is because I have been told otherwise by faculty in my department (granted, not the PD).

Having a manuscript that is "submitted" means very little. Anyone can submit a manuscript.

Having a manuscript that is "under review" could potentially mean a little more. But then again, it might not. Under a definition that includes all manuscripts that are currently parked with one of the editorial staff, someone who submitted a 'presubmission inquiry' with PLoS Medicine could claim to have a paper "under review" when in fact a presubmission inquiry is a very different thing than a paper that has been accepted as a submission and farmed out to peer reviewers.

Again, going back to the general principles that I described in the initial post, the aim is to be conservative in how you document your interpretation of what is meritorious or not. Your application reviewers can draw their own conclusions. Suppose you have an 'in-press' manuscript at JAMA that you list under 'other than published'. Do we think that a residency application reviewer will not see it, or discount it? Certainly not. You lose nothing by being conservative in your category assignments, whereas if you try to upsell then you run the risk of being perceived as an upseller -- and your upselling will be right there on paper, for everyone to see.

Clearly, different interpreters will have different opinions on category assignments. Your faculty supervisor may assert that describing an under-review manuscript as 'other than published' is perfectly appropriate. Fine-- who am I to contradict her when there are no concrete guidelines published as to what specifically belongs in the 'other than published' category?

For another perspective, see this ERAS worksheet (warning: PDF link): the 'other than published' category here is explicitly described as including "Submitted, Provisional Accepted, Accepted or In-Press". Here we see a nice mix of conservative and anti-conservative category assignments. It is conservative in the sense that many would argue that 'in-press' articles can be listed in a 'higher' already-published category (which is probably more reasonable than including 'provisional accepted' in the same category). It is anti-conservative in the sense that many would argue that 'submitted' articles should not be listed here because there simply is no merit to submitting a manuscript.

-AT.

 

[keaneintheblock]

I'm actually in a dilemma. I have a published abstract in the " American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine":

Circulating Endothelial Microparticles As A Measure Of Lung Destruction In Smokers

C. Gordon, K. Gudi, A. Krause, R. Sackrowitz, F. Zakko, Y. Strulovici-Barel, B. Harvey, R. G. Crystal

Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States of America
Am J Respir Crit Care Med 181;2010:A3444

I put it in the first category ( articles/abstracts, peer reviewed, published). It's not indexed in Pubmed yet. I'm confused what to put in the volume and pages section ( because it's an abstaract). They also ask for the publication name. Do they mean by that just the name " American Journal of Respirtory and Critical Care Medicine"

Here's a link :

http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/citation/181/1_MeetingAbstracts/A3444

I'll appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

 

[atsai3]

I'm actually in a dilemma. I have a published abstract in the " American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine":

Circulating Endothelial Microparticles As A Measure Of Lung Destruction In Smokers

C. Gordon, K. Gudi, A. Krause, R. Sackrowitz, F. Zakko, Y. Strulovici-Barel, B. Harvey, R. G. Crystal

Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States of America
Am J Respir Crit Care Med 181;2010:A3444

I put it in the first category ( articles/abstracts, peer reviewed, published). It's not indexed in Pubmed yet. I'm confused what to put in the volume and pages section ( because it's an abstaract). They also ask for the publication name. Do they mean by that just the name " American Journal of Respirtory and Critical Care Medicine"

Here's a link :

http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/citation/181/1_MeetingAbstracts/A3444

I'll appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

Some abstract publications don't get indexed in PubMed. ACEP doesn't either, for example (or at least they didn't at one point in time).

You can include this in published abstracts. Yes, the journal is AJRCC. Other citation information is as listed: Vol 181. Page A3444.

-AT.

 

[gstrub]

If I have a poster, but was not the one "doing the talking," and the abstract was not published, does it belong anywhere?

 

[atsai3]

If I have a poster, but was not the one "doing the talking," and the abstract was not published, does it belong anywhere?

You could discuss it in the 'Research Experience' section.

-AT.

 

[Brodmann]

You could discuss it in the 'Research Experience' section.

-AT.

I was a senior scientific member of an International congress and arranged some teleconferences and ...; Should I mention this in my Research experiences or in my Personal Statement?

 

[atsai3]

I was a senior scientific member of an International congress and arranged some teleconferences and ...; Should I mention this in my Research experiences or in my Personal Statement?

Not really. But it would probably be better described in "Volunteer Experiences" or "Other Awards/Accomplishments".

-AT.

 

[Brodmann]

Not really. But it would probably be better described in "Volunteer Experiences" or "Other Awards/Accomplishments".

-AT.

Another situation: We had a Student Research Committee in our school. Can I mention my membership, activities, work shop experiences, symposiums and ... there? If yes, where?
Again thanks a lot,

 

[ZagDoc]

So just to make sure, if I have a manuscript that is submitted for publication but still currently under review, I should not list it under Peer Reviewed Journal Articles/Abstracts (Other than Published)?

Only reason I ask is because I have been told otherwise by faculty in my department (granted, not the PD).

FWIW, I talked to the program director, and he said to list the manuscript under "Peer Reviewed Journal Articles/Abstracts (Other than Published)" even though it has only been submitted.

The way he described it was that, yes, for the rest of the academic world, only having a manuscript submitted doesn't mean jack because anyone can submit a manuscript. But as a medical student, who is almost always working underneath an experienced PI in their department, taking a study from in progress to submitted is actually significant as it shows the ability to take something from concept to something substantive, so you should advertise that fact. He says that when they evaluate applicants, everyone has tons of projects "in progress" but its the ones who can produce something concrete which make an impression, and that includes things that are only submitted.

But as atsai3 said, never hurts to be conservative.

 

[atsai3]

Another situation: We had a Student Research Committee in our school. Can I mention my membership, activities, work shop experiences, symposiums and ... there? If yes, where?
Again thanks a lot,

Those could also go in the same place.

-AT.

 

[alittlestory]

ERAS 2011 has specified loads of categories for publications, i.e. non-peer reviewed, non-published, online publication and other articles etc.

As a medical editor for a society- I have lots of articles that are posted to both their website and the bi-monthly e-newsletter...where would this fall?

Also, if abstracts have been submitted for conference presentations... and will subsequently be published in a peer-reviewed journal (if accepted) where does this go?

Lastly, abstracts submitted for oral presentation-- would that go under abstracts or oral presentations?!

thanks

 

[calespine]

ERAS 2011 has specified loads of categories for publications, i.e. non-peer reviewed, non-published, online publication and other articles etc.

As a medical editor for a society- I have lots of articles that are posted to both their website and the bi-monthly e-newsletter...where would this fall?

Also, if abstracts have been submitted for conference presentations... and will subsequently be published in a peer-reviewed journal (if accepted) where does this go?

Lastly, abstracts submitted for oral presentation-- would that go under abstracts or oral presentations?!

thanks

Personally, I only put full manuscripts in the "publications" section. All my "abstracts" I just put in the oral presentations category as they were abstracts accepted at national conferences for podium presentations. Just because they will be published in a journal later doesn't change the fact that they are still just abstracts I submitted for a presentation at a conference. I don't care that they were "peer-reviewed." We all know that "peer-reviewed" for a national conference vs. for a publication in NEJM is definitely not the same.

I think you should include an abstract in the published abstract category only if you specifically submitted that abstract directly to a journal (pretty rare, and most PDs know this and thus don't expect to see many real ones).

 

[atsai3]

ERAS 2011 has specified loads of categories for publications, i.e. non-peer reviewed, non-published, online publication and other articles etc.

As a medical editor for a society- I have lots of articles that are posted to both their website and the bi-monthly e-newsletter...where would this fall?

Honestly, I haven't seen the ERAS 2011 form. But little articles like these should be considered non-peer reviewed.

Also, if abstracts have been submitted for conference presentations... and will subsequently be published in a peer-reviewed journal (if accepted) where does this go?

See the FAQ (with caveat by ZagDoc, see post #14): "If you were an author on a draft manuscript that is intended for submission to a peer reviewed journal, or has been submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal, or is currently under review at a peer reviewed journal, but has not advanced further in the publication process (e.g., revise and resubmit, provisionally accepted, accepted for publication, in press, etc.) then you should not list it under 'peer reviewed journal articles'."

Lastly, abstracts submitted for oral presentation-- would that go under abstracts or oral presentations?!

thanks

Same as above. "Submitted" really doesn't mean anything.

-AT.

 

[karatekid]

Honestly, I haven't seen ERAS 2011. But little articles like these should be considered non-peer reviewed.

See the FAQ (with caveat by ZagDoc, see post #14): "If you were an author on a draft manuscript that is intended for submission to a peer reviewed journal, or has been submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal, or is currently under review at a peer reviewed journal, but has not advanced further in the publication process (e.g., revise and resubmit, provisionally accepted, accepted for publication, in press, etc.) then you should not list it under 'peer reviewed journal articles'."

Same as above. "Submitted" really doesn't mean anything.

-AT.

Of course it means something if it comes from a respected institution where they actually publish seroius articles and not garbage. The least it can do for your application is that the PD might know a couple of the other authors personally and it would be a positive point for you!!! I would suggest that if anyone out there has submitted any articles and are sure it will get publish (for those of you in research you know what I'm talking about, most of the studies will get revised not rejected) to put it in your ERAS application.
My 2 cents.

Cheers

 

[IHeartNerds]

My 2 cents.

I agree with this. For god's sake, there's a "Submitted" checkbox on Articles/Abstracts Other Than Published. And for my particular corner of medicine, "submitting" a presentation to the national meeting is the same as it being accepted, if you 1) didn't blatantly steal the data and 2) wrote the abstract in english.

I appreciate the advice of all the PDs and admins here, but I'm going to go with the advice of my home PD over theirs. Why? Because this stuff is incredibly specialty specific despite ERAS being one-size-fits-all.

 

[alittlestory]

Thanks for the responses... perhaps since the options are new for 2011, it's going to be difficult to clarify...

Still unsure if my medical writing for the website should go under "Other Articles" versus "Non-Peer Reviewed Online Publications"-

And if they've allowed for the "submitted" option from the drop down menu, what is the drawback for listing our submitted abstracts?

If someone could please let me know specifically how to delineate the difference between an abstract submitted for poster vs. oral... I don't know where to put these (Presentation vs. Abstracts)

thanks

 

[Brodmann]

Where else would you put it? Also, if it has been accepted for publication, it's probably already available as an "Epub Ahead of Print" and is listed in PubMed and available for download. As such, it's probably kosher to even just put it in the "Peer Reviewed Journal Articles" section and be done with it. If you have a publication date (and Volume/Issue/Page #), go ahead...it's not like they're going to reject it now.

My personal belief is that, if it's indexed on PubMed, it's published and you're in the clear. I have an article that won't be physically printed until October but has been online for a month. If I was filling out ERAS right now, damn right that would be in my Publications list.

Same situation: I have an article available as "Epub ahead of print" with a PMID in pubmed. In the publication page of the ERAS, there are required asterisk items (Vol. No. pages) to fill that I don't know what to do. When I put the [Epub...] in those 3 items In my CV or CAF it will be written as:
"..., Journal of ... . 2010 Jul; [Epub ahead of print([Epub ahead of print): [Epub ahead of print. Cited in PubMed; PMID: ........"

Isn't it awkward for the PD to read that as above (3 [Epub...] in a row)?

 

[atsai3]

Same situation: I have an article available as "Epub ahead of print" with a PMID in pubmed. In the publication page of the ERAS, there are required asterisk items (Vol. No. pages) to fill that I don't know what to do. When I put the [Epub...] in those 3 items In my CV or CAF it will be written as:
"..., Journal of ... . 2010 Jul; [Epub ahead of print([Epub ahead of print): [Epub ahead of print. Cited in PubMed; PMID: ........"

Isn't it awkward for the PD to read that as above (3 [Epub...] in a row)?

You only need "Epub ahead of print" for one of the fields. For the others, just use a filler, like "x" or ".". The program director can figure it out.

-AT.

 

[bbqbakedlays]

So I have an abstract that was accepted for poster to a meeting in October. I am absolutely going to present it at this meeting. Do I list it in the publications section even though I havent actually presented it yet? Or just say accepted for poster in the research experience section? The abstract will also be published in the meeting journal. Do I list that too, even though it hasn't come out yet? I suppose I can wait and send it as an update to PDs??

Also, I did two lectures as a guest lecturer in 2nd year medical student classes for two separate lecture topics in our clinical medicine course. Can I list these as oral presentations or do I list them as volunteer experiences?

I do not want to upsell but I do not want to undercut myself either in the publications section.

Thanks in advance!!

 

[calespine]

I'm kinda confused- are you all using abstracts that were accepted for conference presentations twice? Once for the actual oral or poster presentation, and also once for the "abstract" as a publication? If I submitted an abstract for a conference, then I only put that abstract in the oral presentation section even though the abstract would also be published in the meeting journal issue. Am I "underselling" or just being reasonable?

 

[drcocochanel]

Another redundant question, I recently submitted an abstract to ASH. I will not receive notification of acceptance till October. I asked to be considered for both oral and poster presentation, likely I will get the latter since it was a small retrospective cohort study.

Should I put this anywhere under the publication section, such as poster presentation with the designation of "submitted". Or is this inappropriate, should I just mention this in my research experience section at the end, such as "submitted abstract to ASH Annual Conference 8/10; notification pending"

 

[gutonc]

Another redundant question, I recently submitted an abstract to ASH. I will not receive notification of acceptance till October. I asked to be considered for both oral and poster presentation, likely I will get the latter since it was a small retrospective cohort study.

Should I put this anywhere under the publication section, such as poster presentation with the designation of "submitted". Or is this inappropriate, should I just mention this in my research experience section at the end, such as "submitted abstract to ASH Annual Conference 8/10; notification pending"

Yes...do this.

While highly unlikely (like approaching zero probability), there is a chance it won't be accepted even for a poster presentation and then, lo and behold, you've lied on your application. Avoid upselling.

 

[calespine]

Anyone have an answer to whether you guys are counting abstracts submitted for conference presentations that were accepted and are published in a meeting journal as 1) presentation and 2) published abstract? I will only count mine as presentations unless you guys have advice to the contrary.

 

[atsai3]

Anyone have an answer to whether you guys are counting abstracts submitted for conference presentations that were accepted and are published in a meeting journal as 1) presentation and 2) published abstract? I will only count mine as presentations unless you guys have advice to the contrary.

There's really no point in writing it down twice. Anyone reviewing your application will be able to see that it is the same research project.

-AT.

 

[gutonc]

Anyone have an answer to whether you guys are counting abstracts submitted for conference presentations that were accepted and are published in a meeting journal as 1) presentation and 2) published abstract? I will only count mine as presentations unless you guys have advice to the contrary.

Pick one. They're both "2nd tier" as far as pubs go and nobody will really care one way or the other. Putting it both places smacks of CV padding and is weak (although the degree to which anyone will actually pay attention is both debatable and very small).

 

[bbqbakedlays]

Ok so wait. Nobody answered my question..lol

Can I put it as a publication if it was accepted for poster at the October meeting....I technically will not have presented it yet because I am sumbitting my application on Sept 1 at 1201 am. If not, I will just keep it in the research experience section. meh.


Thanks!!!

 

[calespine]

Ok so wait. Nobody answered my question..lol

Can I put it as a publication if it was accepted for poster at the October meeting....I technically will not have presented it yet because I am sumbitting my application on Sept 1 at 1201 am. If not, I will just keep it in the research experience section. meh.


Thanks!!!

I would mark it as accepted if that's an option. ERAS doesn't let you input dates in the future (like saying a publication or presentation will be in october).

 

[Brodmann]

You only need "Epub ahead of print" for one of the fields. For the others, just use a filler, like "x" or ".". The program director can figure it out.

-AT.

Thanks again. Do we necessarily have to fill the section "Reason for Leaving" in the Experiences part for all of our activities?

 

[atsai3]

Thanks again. Do we necessarily have to fill the section "Reason for Leaving" in the Experiences part for all of our activities?

You could (1) leave all of them them blank, (2) fill out each with the same reason ("Left employment after completion of prespecified two-year contract", "Left employment after completion of research project", etc), or (3) leave most blank except for one or two experiences where the departure was premature ("Fired for sleeping with student"). Exercise your own judgment and pick one that seems reasonable to you.

-AT.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

What if you presented at a national conference, AND the manuscript was later published in a journal? Should you count it as "Peer Reviewed Journal Articles/Abstracts" or "Poster Presentation"?

Thanks!

 

[calespine]

What if you presented at a national conference, AND the manuscript was later published in a journal? Should you count it as "Peer Reviewed Journal Articles/Abstracts" or "Poster Presentation"?

Thanks!

Do you mean an actual manuscript or just an abstract? I assume you mean the abstract was published- and if so, the answer is provided a few posts above.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

Do you mean an actual manuscript or just an abstract? I assume you mean the abstract was published- and if so, the answer is provided a few posts above.

No. I mean the actual manuscript. It is in a journal.

 

[calespine]

No. I mean the actual manuscript. It is in a journal.

Ah- sorry, yeah then I would include both the poster presentation and the publication. I don't think this is padding.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

Ah- sorry, yeah then I would include both the poster presentation and the publication. I don't think this is padding.

Cool, thanks.

One more thing, tried to find it but maybe I'm overlooking ... would something you list in "publications" also be put into the "experiences" section under research or is it considered double-posting/padding? Sorry if its dumb and been addressed ...

 

[calespine]

Cool, thanks.

One more thing, tried to find it but maybe I'm overlooking ... would something you list in "publications" also be put into the "experiences" section under research or is it considered double-posting/padding? Sorry if its dumb and been addressed ...

Most describe their research project in the research experience section, then put the citations in the publications section.

 

[gutonc]

Ah- sorry, yeah then I would include both the poster presentation and the publication. I don't think this is padding.

Including it in both is definitely padding. Pick one (the better sounding one) and run with it.

 

[calespine]

.

 

[atsai3]

In the 'experience' section, describe your work and state that it led to publication. e.g. "The aim of the research project was to describe the dating habits of fruit flies. For this project I pipetted bug juice 80 hours a day and contributed to the writing of the 'data collection' section of the manuscript. My work on this project led to a 5th-authored publication (see below)."

-AT.

 

[bigj626]

I got a quick question about a case report. I wrote the case report and its finished and ready for submission. Do you think its okay to put this under "other than published" and then for status put submitted. And if yes what do I put for publication name?

thanks a lot!

 

[ZagDoc]

I got a quick question about a case report. I wrote the case report and its finished and ready for submission. Do you think its okay to put this under "other than published" and then for status put submitted. And if yes what do I put for publication name?

thanks a lot!

Wouldn't list it as submitted until you have a title and a journal it is phsyically/electronically submitted to, aka it is literally "submitted."

That being said... title your case report and submit it for gods sake!

 

[atsai3]

I got a quick question about a case report. I wrote the case report and its finished and ready for submission. Do you think its okay to put this under "other than published" and then for status put submitted. And if yes what do I put for publication name?

thanks a lot!

No.
This is addressed in the FAQ.

-AT.

 

[Brodmann]

In the 'experience' section, describe your work and state that it led to publication. e.g. "The aim of the research project was to describe the dating habits of fruit flies. For this project I pipetted bug juice 80 hours a day and contributed to the writing of the 'data collection' section of the manuscript. My work on this project led to a 5th-authored publication (see below)."

-AT.

Is it necessarily needed to again write the " ... publication (see below) " in the research experiment or it is just enough to say " ...My work on this project resulted in a publication"? (considering that the author has already mentioned the manuscript in the publication section)

 

[Calipers]

I wrote an entry that was published in a medical encyclopedia which has multiple editors and editions, and am wondering where to list this in ERAS. Do I list it under Other Articles or Peer Reviewed Book Chapter? While I have the publication details to list it in Peer Reviewed Book Chapter, I am inclined to list it in Other Articles to avoid upselling. What's your opinion?

Also, if I list it under Other Articles, then what should I put for "Title of Other Article" and "Publication Name"? For example, say the title of my entry was "ABCD" and the encyclopedia was "XYZ Encyclopedia, 10th edition, with AC and TH as editors." Does "ABCD" go under Title or Publication name? And how much detail do I include regarding the encyclopedia?

Pardon my neuroses and thanks for your responses!

 

[atsai3]

I wrote an entry that was published in a medical encyclopedia which has multiple editors and editions, and am wondering where to list this in ERAS. Do I list it under Other Articles or Peer Reviewed Book Chapter? While I have the publication details to list it in Peer Reviewed Book Chapter, I am inclined to list it in Other Articles to avoid upselling. What's your opinion?

Also, if I list it under Other Articles, then what should I put for "Title of Other Article" and "Publication Name"? For example, say the title of my entry was "ABCD" and the encyclopedia was "XYZ Encyclopedia, 10th edition, with AC and TH as editors." Does "ABCD" go under Title or Publication name? And how much detail do I include regarding the encyclopedia?

Pardon my neuroses and thanks for your responses!

In general, book chapters are not considered peer reviewed. As is discussed in the FAQ, anyone can write a book. It would not be appropriate to represent a medical encyclopedia article as 'peer reviewed'.

-AT.

 

[dementia]

In general, book chapters are not considered peer reviewed. As is discussed in the FAQ, anyone can write a book. It would not be appropriate to represent a medical encyclopedia article as 'peer reviewed'.

-AT.

Unless one is publishing his own book, book chapters once written may be reviewed by section editors. Unlike publication in journals, book chapters are guaranteed for publication since most of them are invited by the editors.