Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
It sounds like it really isn't... you participated in a competition, and then decided to try and patent the result. I'd probably list that under "Other Awards/Accomplishments." If it's a really cool invention and/or you wind up actually getting the patent, I imagine it will come up a lot on your interviews.
1. I had the same situation. What I did was list the authors as they are on the posters, then when it comes to the title of the meeting I said "presented by Dr. so-and-so at" whatever the meeting was.
Is the manuscript titled "How I single-handedly cured all types of cancer with a common household condiment."? If not, I promise that nobody will ever look it up.
Yeah, there's no right or wrong choice; clearly oral>poster, but national>regional (nobody will be able to tell from the listing which one had more data).
I would love to know if anyone has a good answer to this question about Cureus. I just published a case report here, it's listed in PubMed with an associated PMID, has a volume/issue number, but I guess the page number would just be eXXXX or whatever. @gutonc said "if they have PubMed ID's put them in the Journal category," and I'm feeling more inclined to do that at this point, but I really don't want to misrepresent here. Any input from someone who has a good understanding of these things would be greatly appreciated.
I think you can put the Cureus article in the publication section without being disingenuous. But here's the thing about pubs and the people who review your app. They're going to look at where your name is in the author list and then at the journal name. If they're interviewing you, they might pay attention to the title just to see if it's interesting enough to ask you about.
Thank you for the reply, this is very helpful!
If you can find it in pubmed then it's not disingenuous, though anyone who is familiar with the meeting will recognize that you're padding your CV.
It's cool that you got this stuff published. One of my partners has had a number of prose pieces (fiction and non-fiction) published in a variety of journals including NEJM and JAMA. One of my residency classmates who is an interventional cardiologist publishes poetry and short fiction in medical and literary journals. Neither of them put them in the "publications" section of their CV though, and neither should you.
Yes.
Non peer reviewed. A truly peer reviewed publication would have been returned to you to edit/amend.
Personally, if you're anything resembling a traditional student (including someone who took 1-5 gap years after undergrad), then I'd probably list literally any employment you've had. You can skip your summer job in retail between freshman and sophomore year of college, but anything where you got a paycheck for more than a couple of months I think should go in there. Firstly it fills in any gaps between undergrad and med school so they know what you were up to, but also I think there's value in having had a Real Job, even if it's not necessarily directly medicine-related.
So question, How would a StatPearls publication stack up? It has a PubMedID so I am unsure. Does that automatically make it a peer reviewed piece? Also, how about a case report published in Cureus and is labeled "Peer-reviewed?". I know that seems obvious but I want to make sure as I do not have all the knowledge on these facts. What might seem obvious to me might not be correct.
You should list them how they are actually listed on the journal article.
Peer reviewed journal. Several journals have a lot of online-only content these days, but "peer reviewed online publication" means something other than an actual journal article
The first is the title of your article. The "Publication Name" is the name of the journal, ie "Nature."
Again, only you likely know what kind of review went into each of these publications. If the publication says they are peer-reviewed, then you can put that, but keep in mind that we can all read the references and will know that while these are all "publications" and you can say that without being disingenuous, at the same time it doesn't count for the same amount as a more recognizable publication.
If they're published, then don't put "other than published."
I'm not sure what you're asking about specifically, but I'm going to suggest "Experiences" and you can talk about your AMA advocacy.
Agree, it doesn't seem like you ever received any feedback or review and it was just summarily posted online. Honestly not sure it should be listed as a publication at all--seems more like a major school assignment that happens to be posted online--but if you want to it should not be listed as peer reviewed.
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?
It’s been a while since I filled out ERAS. If there’s a section for “submitted,” go for it, otherwise I wouldn’t. I don’t think there was when I filled irbid out but it’s possible it could have changed
You really have 10 separate research projects which you contributed to over the past year that don’t overlap in any way/could be condensed into fewer abstracts?
It honestly feels like these are probably several parts of a larger project(s) that could be reported in fewer abstracts (and thus actually be more useful). But of course I don’t know that for sure.
So they're already accepted? Or you still need to submit them later this month? Cuz your two posts seem to conflict on whether they are accepted yet or not.
