ERAS 'Publications' Listing FAQ

[GoSpursGo]

Thanks for your reply!
I guess my concern was that some it’s in an “online first” edition tentatively , there is currently no volume or issue number for me to cite, and if I select peer reviewed article on eras, it asks for that specific information. Which is why I was thinking it would maybe go under peer reviewed (other than published) section. But at the same time, the article is eventually going to be officially published with a volume and issue number - I’m just unsure when .

Doesn't matter. I'm not sure exactly what ERAS looks like on your end, but just put in the DOI or something when it asks for that info (or leave it blank if you can). Within academia it's well-accepted that you get to add your publications to your CV as soon as they're accepted, the lag time is meaningless.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bbentertainment]

Doesn't matter. I'm not sure exactly what ERAS looks like on your end, but just put in the DOI or something when it asks for that info (or leave it blank if you can). Within academia it's well-accepted that you get to add your publications to your CV as soon as they're accepted, the lag time is meaningless.

So I just double checked. If I go the peer reviewed journal article route, it does not let me submit without filling in the volume, issue number, and pages. I tried inputting the DOI number 10.XXXX/XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (I assume I need to input all the numbers after the slash as well for the DOI?), but the box cuts off the last 4 numbers. I tried to go the peer reviewed (other than published) route, and then there is also the option to select the manuscript as submitted, accepted, or in press. I am wondering if my paper would fall into this 'in-press' stage even though it is technically already published in online first form - just not formally in the printed journal yet. The other option is I could also type in 'online first' in the sections that ask for volume, issue and page number if I go the route of saying this is a peer reviewed article.

Any clarification would be helpful

 

[GoSpursGo]

So I just double checked. If I go the peer reviewed journal article route, it does not let me submit without filling in the volume, issue number, and pages. I tried inputting the DOI number 10.XXXX/XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (I assume I need to input all the numbers after the slash as well for the DOI?), but the box cuts off the last 4 numbers. I tried to go the peer reviewed (other than published) route, and then there is also the option to select the manuscript as submitted, accepted, or in press. I am wondering if my paper would fall into this 'in-press' stage even though it is technically already published in online first form - just not formally in the printed journal yet. The other option is I could also type in 'online first' in the sections that ask for volume, issue and page number if I go the route of saying this is a peer reviewed article.

Any clarification would be helpful

Huh, that seems needlessly complicated. In any case, it sounds like "in press" is probably correct. It should still count the same. And it may be formally published by 9/15 anyways.

 

[Bucknutz2020]

Just a clarification, in the FAQ it said not to place manuscripts under the "other than published category", when in that category there is a "submitted" option, should I put publications that have been submitted/revision submitted under this category or just keep under research experiences? Do not want to pad the application unnecessarily.

"FROM FAQ:
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."

 

[GoSpursGo]

Just a clarification, in the FAQ it said not to place manuscripts under the "other than published category", when in that category there is a "submitted" option, should I put publications that have been submitted/revision submitted under this category or just keep under research experiences? Do not want to pad the application unnecessarily.

"FROM FAQ:
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."

It sounds like they say that you can include manuscripts which have been revised and resubmitted in the "other than published category" section. Frankly, I think that's a pretty hair-splitting distinction between regular "submitted" and "revision submitted," so I'd honestly include both kinds under the "other than submitted" category.

Honestly, I think this whole setup is way more complicated than it really needs to be. In practice, once your article is accepted, it counts on your CV; a paper that's submitted doesn't count yet, but since ERAS gives you the option to list it you'd kind of be foolish not to use it.

 

[bbentertainment]

Huh, that seems needlessly complicated. In any case, it sounds like "in press" is probably correct. It should still count the same. And it may be formally published by 9/15 anyways.

Agreed lol. Thank you for your help!

 

[deleted1016251]

'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).

At my medical school, we all have to do a Grand Rounds presentation once during our first year of med school and again during our second year of med school.

For these Grand Rounds presentations we are placed into groups of 5-8 students and present a case that was assigned to us out of a medical journal, and then we present the workup, diagnosis and treatment for the case in front of our entire 200 person class and numerous faculty members.

I’ve done this twice as I mentioned before, so am I allowed to list both of these as oral presentations on ERAS?

It just seems weird because all I did was present a case that someone else published which I was not actually involved in. All I did was read the case report that they published and present it to my class in a 20 minute grand rounds presentation.

Is this cool to put in my app? I’d love to have it on there, but I’m hesitant to list an article that came out before I was even in Med school and doesn’t even have my name on it.

 

[GoSpursGo]

At my medical school, we all have to do a Grand Rounds presentation once during our first year of med school and again during our second year of med school.

For these Grand Rounds presentations we are placed into groups of 5-8 students and present a case that was assigned to us out of a medical journal, and then we present the workup, diagnosis and treatment for the case in front of our entire 200 person class and numerous faculty members.

I’ve done this twice as I mentioned before, so am I allowed to list both of these as oral presentations on ERAS?

It just seems weird because all I did was present a case that someone else published which I was not actually involved in. All I did was read the case report that they published and present it to my class in a 20 minute grand rounds presentation.

Is this cool to put in my app? I’d love to have it on there, but I’m hesitant to list an article that came out before I was even in Med school and doesn’t even have my name on it.

Presumably there was a more formal title to the presentation, like “grand rounds: medical student presentations” or something like that. I wouldn’t put the actual article title.

In any event, technically yes you can put this. For the reasons that were mentioned by that post 10 years ago, it is pretty well recognized that these are dubious and used by Med schools to inflate CVs. Nevertheless, you’re not being disingenuous by putting it there. PDs will recognize it for what it is, fluff, but it’s still allowed.

 

[CPT_L31]

If I published something on JACC 'expert opinion' what category of publication would that fall under in ERAS?

 

[Shah91]

Which category on the publications section on ERAS should we choose for a letter to the editor (correspondence) in Lancet??

 

[mvenus929]

Thanks for your reply!
I guess my concern was that some it’s in an “online first” edition tentatively , there is currently no volume or issue number for me to cite, and if I select peer reviewed article on eras, it asks for that specific information. Which is why I was thinking it would maybe go under peer reviewed (other than published) section. But at the same time, the article is eventually going to be officially published with a volume and issue number - I’m just unsure when .

The doi doesn't change once it moves to an actual issue, and you can update your ongoing CV. For ERAS, you can put x or 0 as the volume and issue numbers if it makes you put something, and somehow finagle it to allow you to put the DOI (which yes, includes everything in the number after the doi.org/).

 

[PakiMDDreamer]

Want to reintroduce a question that has had kind of all over the place answers ----- submitted abstracts for conferences that will not communicate if accepted for podium/poster or rejected until after applications already go in.

I am very inclined to put these on my ERAS as I've been told by successfully matched applicants, PDs, faculty, and more to include anything and everything, including that which is just submitted.

Now the question arises, under what category should "submitted abstracts" be?

 

[GoSpursGo]

Want to reintroduce a question that has had kind of all over the place answers ----- submitted abstracts for conferences that will not communicate if accepted for podium/poster or rejected until after applications already go in.

I am very inclined to put these on my ERAS as I've been told by successfully matched applicants, PDs, faculty, and more to include anything and everything, including that which is just submitted.

Now the question arises, under what category should "submitted abstracts" be?

I mean, it's not a thing right? There's a huge difference between submitting a full manuscript and throwing together an abstract. If you have a full manuscript, you're probably eventually going to get accepted if you shop it around enough. An abstract submission is certainly at risk of rejection and thus leading to nothing.

So the correct place is under research experience, and say that you've submitted an abstract. If you choose to list it as an abstract, then you must mention that it is pending review.

 

[PakiMDDreamer]

I mean, it's not a thing right? There's a huge difference between submitting a full manuscript and throwing together an abstract. If you have a full manuscript, you're probably eventually going to get accepted if you shop it around enough. An abstract submission is certainly at risk of rejection and thus leading to nothing.

So the correct place is under research experience, and say that you've submitted an abstract. If you choose to list it as an abstract, then you must mention that it is pending review.

Yeah I'm sorry this is just in stark contrast to everything I've heard from matched residents and PDs in my field of interest (a competitive one so everyone is frankly encouraged to pad), so I will not be taking your advice. An abstract still takes writing, data collection, analysis, figure production, IRB, etc to get an abstract together so I'm not sure why you discount it

Nevertheless, is under oral presentation or poster presentation okay for it then? I am putting "submitted" ahead of the title to better indicate it is under review, I am in no way trying to hide that fact

 

[GoSpursGo]

Yeah I'm sorry this is just in stark contrast to everything I've heard from matched residents and PDs in my field of interest (a competitive one so everyone is frankly encouraged to pad), so I will not be taking your advice. An abstract still takes writing, data collection, analysis, figure production, IRB, etc to get an abstract together so I'm not sure why you discount it

Nevertheless, is under oral presentation or poster presentation okay for it then? I am putting "submitted" ahead of the title to better indicate it is under review, I am in no way trying to hide that fact

Having written more than a few abstracts and manuscripts, I'm not discounting that you put work into it--it's just disingenuous to say that you have a presentation at XXX Conference if it hasn't been accepted. Plenty of people throw together abstracts that are crap and will be rejected. Doesn't mean that you did, so no need for you to get offended by that. And it is a completely different level of effort than a full manuscript, which is why ERAS has a section for submitted manuscripts.

If you're going to list it as a presentation, then I would choose poster presentation because the vast majority of people who apply for an oral presentation won't get it. But clearly you're going to just do whatever you are told by your mentors, which to a certain extent you probably should, so I'm not sure it really matters what I tell you.

 

[PakiMDDreamer]

Having written more than a few abstracts and manuscripts, I'm not discounting that you put work into it--it's just disingenuous to say that you have a presentation at XXX Conference if it hasn't been accepted. Plenty of people throw together abstracts that are crap and will be rejected. Doesn't mean that you did, so no need for you to get offended by that. And it is a completely different level of effort than a full manuscript, which is why ERAS has a section for submitted manuscripts.

If you're going to list it as a presentation, then I would choose poster presentation because the vast majority of people who apply for an oral presentation won't get it. But clearly you're going to just do whatever you are told by your mentors, which to a certain extent you probably should, so I'm not sure it really matters what I tell you.

Fair points, agreed that calling them orals probably is not fair so will go for the poster route. Thanks for your input, it's crazy confusing how across specialties people seem to follow very different protocols and that there is frankly so much ability within the ERAS application to...fabricate any story you want. It's perplexing to say the least. I am truly shocked by some of the tactics from matched applicants including putting down Sub-I presentations which is obviously nowhere near a podium at a national conference

 

[PakiMDDreamer]

For manuscripts that are under review for recommended revisions....is that considered a provisional acceptance, in the "other" peer review category? while I think most returned revisions (if addressed sufficiently) lead to an acceptance, that may not necessarily be the case every time. However, we have come a long way from just being "submitted"

 

[GoSpursGo]

For manuscripts that are under review for recommended revisions....is that considered a provisional acceptance, in the "other" peer review category? while I think most returned revisions (if addressed sufficiently) lead to an acceptance, that may not necessarily be the case every time. However, we have come a long way from just being "submitted"

That's just not accurate. Have several times gone back and forth on revisions and ultimately been rejected. A provisional acceptance will be said explicitly, and usually says something to the effect of "We are pleased to grant your manuscript provisional acceptance, with the following minor revisions:"

That said, I think both of those scenarios technically fall under the "other" category, as mentioned in the quote from the FAQ a few posts back. You list it as "submitted."

 

[PakiMDDreamer]

That's just not accurate. Have several times gone back and forth on revisions and ultimately been rejected. A provisional acceptance will be said explicitly, and usually says something to the effect of "We are pleased to grant your manuscript provisional acceptance, with the following minor revisions:"

That said, I think both of those scenarios technically fall under the "other" category, as mentioned in the quote from the FAQ a few posts back. You list it as "submitted."

haha oh gosh, it seems I may be surrounded by unreasonable optimists. The general feedback I received was that "they would have outright rejected it if they weren't highly considering accepting it"

Submitted it is! I'm going to denote it as revisions under review.

For my knowledge, are provisional acceptances essentially...requests for very minimal revisions? I guess I'm not sure why they would ever throw that adjective in front, as it should just be "accepted" or "rejected" right? what is with these confusing semantics

 

[GoSpursGo]

haha oh gosh, it seems I may be surrounded by unreasonable optimists. The general feedback I received was that "they would have outright rejected it if they weren't highly considering accepting it"

Submitted it is! I'm going to denote it as revisions under review.

For my knowledge, are provisional acceptances essentially...requests for very minimal revisions? I guess I'm not sure why they would ever throw that adjective in front, as it should just be "accepted" or "rejected" right? what is with these confusing semantics

Well that is certainly a very reasonable optimistic way to look at things--we have also gotten outright rejections, so the fact that they requested revisions means that you do indeed have a solid shot It's just not a sure thing, and unless you're the editor sending back the reviewer comments you just have no idea if the chances for eventual acceptance are closer to 20% or 90%.

Provisional acceptances are pretty rare, really. Unless you're writing up a groundbreaking clinical trial that a journal was actually already expecting to receive, chances are you're going to go through at least one round of revisions before getting an acceptance.

 

[Frogger27]

Is there a way to have ERAS list publications by date vs author last name? I have a bunch of unrelated pubs, but with them being sorted by author it is really hard to tell my recent publications that are in the field of interest

 

[Nephronlearner]

Hello everyone. I was wondering if someone could advise me on the most appropriate way to list my publications on ERAS. I am an IMG so some of the terminology might be a bit different and I am unsure how to appropriately list everything.

1) I have published a number of literature reviews in Cureus plus a letter to the editor of another journal. I assume Cureus passes as a peer-reviewed journal (although I imagine most PDs would recognise that it's review process is much less rigorous than in more prestigious journals), correct?
Besides the few of them where I am the first author, I was also part of a team that was writing a bunch of reviews on different topics so I ended up with >10 such articles where I was one of the authors. Does it make sense to list all those Cureus literature reviews? I wouldn't want it to look ridiculous and end up hurting my application.

2) I published a handbook related to the current pandemic in a developing country (with a colleague who is originally from there) where data may be scarce. Does it make sense to put it under a "book chapter" - although it is not exactly a book chapter?

3) As a medical student I was selected to deliver a speech at the university hospital on a very narrow scientific topic - the lecture lasted an hour and was attended by both students and faculty members. Does that count as an "oral presentation"?
I have seen the term "grand rounds" used but as an IMG I am not completely sure if this is comparable.

If anyone can help me, I would greatly appreciate it. I am worried about both writing "too little" and "too much irrelevant stuff".

 

[GoSpursGo]

Hello everyone. I was wondering if someone could advise me on the most appropriate way to list my publications on ERAS. I am an IMG so some of the terminology might be a bit different and I am unsure how to appropriately list everything.

1) I have published a number of literature reviews in Cureus plus a letter to the editor of another journal. I assume Cureus passes as a peer-reviewed journal (although I imagine most PDs would recognise that it's review process is much less rigorous than in more prestigious journals), correct?
Besides the few of them where I am the first author, I was also part of a team that was writing a bunch of reviews on different topics so I ended up with >10 such articles where I was one of the authors. Does it make sense to list all those Cureus literature reviews? I wouldn't want it to look ridiculous and end up hurting my application.

2) I published a handbook related to the current pandemic in a developing country (with a colleague who is originally from there) where data may be scarce. Does it make sense to put it under a "book chapter" - although it is not exactly a book chapter?

3) As a medical student I was selected to deliver a speech at the university hospital on a very narrow scientific topic - the lecture lasted an hour and was attended by both students and faculty members. Does that count as an "oral presentation"?
I have seen the term "grand rounds" used but as an IMG I am not completely sure if this is comparable.

If anyone can help me, I would greatly appreciate it. I am worried about both writing "too little" and "too much irrelevant stuff".

1) I mean, the whole point of those literature reviews always to inflate your CV, right? Yes it’s known that they’re less rigorous, but if you don’t have anything better to put in terms of publications you have nothing to lose by listing them.

2) Probably more like other non peer reviewed publication since it presumably wasn’t edited or reviewed.

3) If it wasn’t explicitly a grand rounds I generally wouldn’t list that.

 

[Nephronlearner]

1) I mean, the whole point of those literature reviews always to inflate your CV, right? Yes it’s known that they’re less rigorous, but if you don’t have anything better to put in terms of publications you have nothing to lose by listing them.

2) Probably more like other non peer reviewed publication since it presumably wasn’t edited or reviewed.

3) If it wasn’t explicitly a grand rounds I generally wouldn’t list that.

Thank you very much for the response, it helps me a lot!
1) I like academic medicine and I had some research experiences (graduation thesis - original research but only listed it as an experience, not as a publication as it didn't go to an actual journal as well as some basic science lab work that never led to publications) so I kind of wanted to learn to write articles and ended up with way more literature reviews than I expected. I am well aware that those won't impress anyone at prestigious university hospitals. I was just worried that having many of those could be seen as "going out of my way to put lipstick on a pig" and ending up hurting me even at lower tier university hospitals (applying for IM and hoping to match at such a place to get more academic opportunities). Thank you for clarifying!

2) It wasn't a proper review so I will list it as "other". I have some peer reviewed chapters in a sort of a medical history/organization book with a reputable publisher so I suppose I can include those.

3) It's hard to say as the concept of grand rounds doesn't exist here. One student or faculty member a week was presenting and I was invited to do the presentation once (in front of faculty and students) and it is mentioned in my MSPE but I am not sure if this is comparable to grand rounds. If it's "safer" not to include it, then I would rather go with the safer option.

 

[GoSpursGo]

3) It's hard to say as the concept of grand rounds doesn't exist here. One student or faculty member a week was presenting and I was invited to do the presentation once (in front of faculty and students) and it is mentioned in my MSPE but I am not sure if this is comparable to grand rounds. If it's "safer" not to include it, then I would rather go with the safer option.

It SOUNDS like something that I wouldn't count, but it's hard for me to know for sure.

 

[Nephronlearner]

It SOUNDS like something that I wouldn't count, but it's hard for me to know for sure.

Thank you very much for the help!

 

[deleted1016251]

I’ve heard mixed things on this from different people, so I’m hoping I can get a better idea on this here:

While I was my IM sub-i I presented educational material to my team on rounds. I did 4 of these in total on a clinical topic relevant to one of our patients. I would research and type up one pagers for everyone on it.

Is this something I should be including somewhere on my ERAS app, and if so, where would it go?

These presentations seem like common practice on IM teams, and so I don’t know if there’s any point to specifically talking about them.

But I’ve also had residents tell me that i should, and I mean, they’re residents who have obviously matched, so I trust their judgement over mine. Still, to me it seems like I may come off poorly.

of course I don’t want to miss anything that I could be including in my residency application.

So what’s the move here?

 

[GoSpursGo]

I’ve heard mixed things on this from different people, so I’m hoping I can get a better idea on this here:

While I was my IM sub-i I presented educational material to my team on rounds. I did 4 of these in total on a clinical topic relevant to one of our patients. I would research and type up one pagers for everyone on it.

Is this something I should be including somewhere on my ERAS app, and if so, where would it go?

These presentations seem like common practice on IM teams, and so I don’t know if there’s any point to specifically talking about them.

But I’ve also had residents tell me that i should, and I mean, they’re residents who have obviously matched, so I trust their judgement over mine. Still, to me it seems like I may come off poorly.

of course I don’t want to miss anything that I could be including in my residency application.

So what’s the move here?

I have always rolled my eyes at people who do this. That's literally just part of doing your rotation and plays into the grade you got, which is already on your transcript.

You wouldn't be the only one to do it, and it probably wouldn't hurt you beyond the initial eyeroll. If you did, no clue where you would put that... if there's some sort of "teaching" or "educational activities" or something like that, maybe there. I would NOT put this as any kind of "presentation" (oral/abstract/otherwise).

 

[cedartree]

When inputting publications into ERAS, what is the difference between "peer reviewed online publication" and "peer reviewed journal/abstract"? I just had a manuscript published in an Open Access Journal. Does this mean it is online only? If so, so that mean it's the former?

Also, I can't currently find this article in PubMed, does anyone know why that may be?

 

[GoSpursGo]

When inputting publications into ERAS, what is the difference between "peer reviewed online publication" and "peer reviewed journal/abstract"? I just had a manuscript published in an Open Access Journal. Does this mean it is online only? If so, so that mean it's the former?

Also, I can't currently find this article in PubMed, does anyone know why that may be?

If it's a journal, and it was peer-reviewed, you should pick peer reviewed journal/abstract even if it's technically online-only. "Online publication" usually means something else.

Not all journals get indexed in PubMed.

 

[TheaterOfTheme]

I actually disagree that you need to be the presenting author to list it—if you contributed to something that was worthy of being presented, particularly at a national/regional meeting, then you deserve credit for it. Yes, it’s more impressive if you actually present, but what’s the point of listing multiple authors at all if only one person gets credit?

Just don’t be disingenuous. If you aren’t the presenting author, make sure you make this clear somehow—I would generally put a * next to the presenting author, and then have a line at the end explaining the notation.

What's the consensus on this at this point? I have an oral presentation (national conference) where I wrote the entire abstract that was accepted and me and the other author put equal work into the powerpoint that was used, but I did not give the oral presentation. It would be unfortunate if it was only to be included in the "research experience" section given the work it required.

I'm also seeing mixed info about including 'peer-reviewed abstracts' from conferences as well. The original post here states its ok, but others have disagreed.

Also, how has ERAS not published guidelines for this yet?

 

[deleted1016251]

I spent a full year doing basic sciences research in the lab of one of the professors at our school. It was mostly bench type stuff. After I finished my year of work, I presented a poster at my school’s research symposium. In order to be eligible to present my poster, I had to submit an abstract of my research and have that be accepted to the symposium before I could submit and present the poster.

I have two questions about this:

1) Can I list both the abstract I submitted to be entered in the symposium as well as the posterI presented once I was accepted?

2) Is there any way to convey the amount of time I spent working on this? I know a poster presentation at your school is not anything major, and it’s not like I discovered the cure to aging or anything, but I spent a full year working so hard in this research. I didn’t take a year off, I would literally go to class, study, hit the lab, and sleep for an entire year. When other students would go home and unwind after an exam, I went to the lab. We only got five weeks of summer between M1 and M2 and I spent all of it on campus in the lab. I go to a DO school and finding research is impossible, I was bending over backwards to find anything and I’m one of the only students at my school who found research that early. A lot of students rack up publications by writing case reports in like a month and that more impressive than a measly poster at your school, but basic sciences research takes ages. I pipetted until I got carpal tunnel.

How do I show how much time went into this to PDs?

 

[GoSpursGo]

What's the consensus on this at this point? I have an oral presentation (national conference) where I wrote the entire abstract that was accepted and me and the other author put equal work into the powerpoint that was used, but I did not give the oral presentation. It would be unfortunate if it was only to be included in the "research experience" section given the work it required.

I'm also seeing mixed info about including 'peer-reviewed abstracts' from conferences as well. The original post here states its ok, but others have disagreed.

Also, how has ERAS not published guidelines for this yet?

Were you actually listed as an author on the abstract? If so, you can list it and convey that someone else was the presenting author. If not, that's dumb that they would let you actually write the abstract and not give you authorship, but it's a research experience. And this is why authorship needs to be discussed at the onset of any project.

Same on the peer-reviewed abstract part.

A few people here are overly strict IMO. Sure, first/presenting/last authors are definitely bigger deals, but there's a reason authorship is given to everyone in the middle to ensure that they receive credit. If you stay in academia these kind of middle-author abstracts should fall off your CV before long, but at your level you should count everything.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I spent a full year doing basic sciences research in the lab of one of the professors at our school. It was mostly bench type stuff. After I finished my year of work, I presented a poster at my school’s research symposium. In order to be eligible to present my poster, I had to submit an abstract of my research and have that be accepted to the symposium before I could submit and present the poster.

I have two questions about this:

1) Can I list both the abstract I submitted to be entered in the symposium as well as the posterI presented once I was accepted?

2) Is there any way to convey the amount of time I spent working on this? I know a poster presentation at your school is not anything major, and it’s not like I discovered the cure to aging or anything, but I spent a full year working so hard in this research. I didn’t take a year off, I would literally go to class, study, hit the lab, and sleep for an entire year. When other students would go home and unwind after an exam, I went to the lab. We only got five weeks of summer between M1 and M2 and I spent all of it on campus in the lab. I go to a DO school and finding research is impossible, I was bending over backwards to find anything and I’m one of the only students at my school who found research that early. A lot of students rack up publications by writing case reports in like a month and that more impressive than a measly poster at your school, but basic sciences research takes ages. I pipetted until I got carpal tunnel.

How do I show how much time went into this to PDs?

1) No, the abstract and the poster are the same thing.

2) You can expound on the amount of time you spent in your research experiences section. Talk about the methodologies you learned. It's understood that basic science research is more time-intensive than case reports/retrospective chart reviews/etc.

That said, this is gonna sound harsh, but at a certain point you don't get credit for effort. It's a bummer that nobody picked up your project and pushed it through to a publication, or that it wasn't at a point where it could be presented at a larger conference... but that's the risk that one takes in doing basic science research. High reward if you can actually get something tangible at the end of it, but also extremely high risk because a year really is a short amount of time if your goal is to get a publication, particularly if you're just doing it on the side and aren't devoting a full year to it.

 

[TheaterOfTheme]

Were you actually listed as an author on the abstract? If so, you can list it and convey that someone else was the presenting author. If not, that's dumb that they would let you actually write the abstract and not give you authorship, but it's a research experience. And this is why authorship needs to be discussed at the onset of any project.

Same on the peer-reviewed abstract part.

A few people here are overly strict IMO. Sure, first/presenting/last authors are definitely bigger deals, but there's a reason authorship is given to everyone in the middle to ensure that they receive credit. If you stay in academia these kind of middle-author abstracts should fall off your CV before long, but at your level you should count everything.

Yes, for the oral presentation I was second author. I will include it with an asterisk noting who was the speaker, then.

I am also the second author on the peer-reviewed abstract (different project than the one mentioned above)--however I presented a poster for that abstract as well. Should the peer-reviewed abstract also be included under publications? I mean what else would a peer-reviewed abstract be if it wasn't something from a conference presentation?

Thanks for the help.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Yes, for the oral presentation I was second author. I will include it with an asterisk noting who was the speaker, then.

I am also the second author on the peer-reviewed abstract (different project than the one mentioned above)--however I presented a poster for that abstract as well. Should the peer-reviewed abstract also be included under publications? I mean what else would a peer-reviewed abstract be if it wasn't something from a conference presentation?

Thanks for the help.

Sometimes large national meetings will publish accepted abstracts as a supplement to the journal for that association; for example, if you get an abstract accepted at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, it gets published in Cancer Research. Some people would list that poster/oral presentation and the "publication" of the abstract separately. I feel like that's still double-dipping because they're the same work presented at the same conference, just in slightly different formats. But that's how some people would do it.

So, if this second-author abstract that you presented the poster was also published as a supplement in a journal, you could argue for listing those separately. I personally wouldn't, but you have to make your own call there.

 

[Tiran145]

Hello,

I wrote a few step 1 like questions for my school's inhouse dermatology newsletter/publication and I wanted to know if these could be counted as a "pub" on eras? if yes under what section would they be put? thanks!

 

[g3tb0mbed]

I don't think that counts

 

[GoSpursGo]

I get that you are just checking the couch cushions for change because you're applying to a competitive specialty and need all the help you can get... but absolutely not. If you are so inclined, describe this activity where you're listing your derm IG volunteer activity.

Merging with ERAS publication FAQ thread.

 

[Tiran145]

I get that you are just checking the couch cushions for change because you're applying to a competitive specialty and need all the help you can get... but absolutely not. If you are so inclined, describe this activity where you're listing your derm IG volunteer activity.

Merging with ERAS publication FAQ thread.

Thanks for the input guys!

 

[kykoon123]

Hello everyone,
Sorry for the specific ERAS question. If I did a hospital audit, then later presented it at a faculty conference, is the audit something I could put under research and the presentation under “oral presentations?” Thanks everyone for their advice in advance.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Hello everyone,
Sorry for the specific ERAS question. If I did a hospital audit, then later presented it at a faculty conference, is the audit something I could put under research and the presentation under “oral presentations?” Thanks everyone for their advice in advance.

This would not count as an oral presentation unless it's a really major institutional conference, ie "Grand Rounds" or another major teaching presentation (see first post).

Whether or not this counts as research depends entirely on the content of the audit. If it's something you could eventually write up in a research or QI paper, you probably could count it.

 

[kykoon123]

This would not count as an oral presentation unless it's a really major institutional conference, ie "Grand Rounds" or another major teaching presentation (see first post).

Whether or not this counts as research depends entirely on the content of the audit. If it's something you could eventually write up in a research or QI paper, you probably could count it.

Thank you so much for your response! If I did feel that it met each of those criteria, would it be appropriate to list them in those two separate categories? i.e. is it double-dipping by listing them separately?

 

[harisjameel]

Is it worth mentioning unpublished research work on your cv, even if you presented that research in an academic conference?

 

[AlteredScale]

Is it worth mentioning unpublished research work on your cv, even if you presented that research in an academic conference?

Yes

 

[GoSpursGo]

Thank you so much for your response! If I did feel that it met each of those criteria, would it be appropriate to list them in those two separate categories? i.e. is it double-dipping by listing them separately?

That's not "double-dipping." Those sections are separate for a reason--the "research experience" is where you describe your exact involvement in the project and what you did, while the "publications/presentations" section is where you show the deliverables that resulted from that work.

"Double-dipping" would be listing the same presentation at the same conferences as an abstract AND a poster AND an oral presentation that were all delivered by different people.

Is it worth mentioning unpublished research work on your cv, even if you presented that research in an academic conference?

Yes.

 

[3member]

Have a question about having an abstract published in multiple journals after a conference. Where and how should I list these? Thanks!

 

[gutonc]

Have a question about having an abstract published in multiple journals after a conference. Where and how should I list these? Thanks!

Single presented abstract? Presentations.

 

[3member]

Single presented abstract? Presentations.

Thank you for the quick reply!

So for example, my abstract got published in multiple supplemental journals so I would list them under presentations in duplicates?
Or include them in my presentations category and state it was published in multiple journals?

 

[3member]

Sometimes large national meetings will publish accepted abstracts as a supplement to the journal for that association; for example, if you get an abstract accepted at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, it gets published in Cancer Research. Some people would list that poster/oral presentation and the "publication" of the abstract separately. I feel like that's still double-dipping because they're the same work presented at the same conference, just in slightly different formats. But that's how some people would do it.

So, if this second-author abstract that you presented the poster was also published as a supplement in a journal, you could argue for listing those separately. I personally wouldn't, but you have to make your own call there.

Would these abstracts go under Presentations or Publications? What if your abstract was published under multiple journals, would it be listed twice (with the Journal titles, Volume, page etc) changed up? TIA