Importance of author placement on Abstracts and Papers in terms of Admissions

Discover Your Odds of Getting into Medical School
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
N

Nafis64

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
307
Reaction score
3
I am glad to be an author on several abstracts and a couple journal articles, and sometimes I do more work than other "authors," but due to the politics that exist in research my name is not the first or second and sometimes I am not even an author. Now how do med schools look at abstracts author placement if your 4th or 5th on about 3-4 similar abstracts?

For papers i know it does not matter as much, but is being 3rd or 4th still good? Will they look at it with less awe then a paper where you are 2nd author?

I don't want them to look at the abstract and say well hes 5th person so this does not show much.

Anyone have an opinion?
Members don't see this ad.
 
I don't know the answer to your question, but in graduate admissions (don't know if this is the same in medical admissions), it was they cared if you were first or second author but really didn't care much about the other positions. That is why I've always followed the rules of research in order to assure my name was in a good place (so far 3 journal articles, 6 abstracts all in the 1st place spot.)
 
Thanks, but yea if you have a phd then it would be different since you have the opportunity to do your own research and obtain funding etc. With just a BA your placed at the back end to the phds and mds
 
Members don't see this ad :)
What are you talking about when you say "abstracts"? If you just mean booklets at conferences, that's probably not too impressive in and of itself unless you are a presenter.

As far as publications: any publication will put you ahead of 90% of applicants.
 
Yea I guess that's what i mean about abstracts. The ones for conferences. So I am guessing it is the same thing for posters as well. and I am not too familiar with abstracts so yea I don't know their importance. but thanks. Hopefully they will turn into actual papers in the near future where i am a co-author 🙂
 
I mean, I have seen CVs that have abstracts listed. It's pretty common to have a "presentations" category, and then list all talks/posters you've given. I'm not sure about the protocol for listing posters that other people have presented but have your name on them, though. It might be best to do "presentations" and "posters" categories, and then list talks you've given (all talks with your name on them?) and then all posters with your name on them. Anybody dealt with this on a CV?
 
if anyone knows that would be great, because I don't know how to list them. I know I am not first author which is not super great, but at least its better than nothing, right? Shows some initiative in research
 
OP, are you just worried about listing it on AMCAS? Just do a category that's "Publications, Abstracts, and Presentations" or something to that effect and list everything there in 3 sub-categories.

Any publication you have will stand out.
 
JJMrK said:
OP, are you just worried about listing it on AMCAS? Just do a category that's "Publications, Abstracts, and Presentations" or something to that effect and list everything there in 3 sub-categories.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. Also, maybe I am just misunderstanding what you mean by list, but I think you really need to cite them in a formal way that shows your position among the authors. I guess MLA style is the most accepted way?

JJMrK said:
Any publication you have will stand out.
Click to expand...

Agree with this also. First author will definitely carry some more weight (and typically there are fewer politics involved here), but any publication is impressive. Everybody knows that the ordering of authors 2 through n-1 can be somewhat arbitrary.
 
It's perfectly acceptable to have a CV section of "Abstracts and Congress Proceedings" where you list any abstracts that get published, or posters presented at national/international meetings. Once you have a bunch of publications, you don't want to clutter that section of your CV up with posters or abstracts. You should also have a section of "Seminar talks" as well as "Invited talks", in my opinion.

Regarding placement on the author list, I wouldn't worry too much about it at this point. Admission committees and interviewers know it is hard to get a first author publication (other than a case report) when you are so junior (not talking about PhDs here). Being involved is the most important thing.
 
It probably goes. 1st or 2nd author high impact journal>1st or 2nd lower>not 1st or 2nd high>not 1st or 2nd low>1st or 2nd conference/abstract>not 1st or 2nd conference/abstract

Either way, research looks good on AMCAS. There are many Adcom scientists that know journal impact and level that will be able to assess rigor and strength of your research. Research really just shows critical/independent thinking skills and intellectual curiosity. I am not 1st or 2nd author (probably 8th of 13) on a low to mid impact journal article and it was brought up at every interview and most wanted me to explain the research in detail. As long as you can do that and show your preparation then you are great. Abstracts, conferences, journal articles all have their own range of impressiveness based on the scientist, research type, conference or journal prestige and your level of involvement in the research. Overall, research is a plus because a lot of applicants don't have strong research experience.
 
Acknowledgements generally mean nothing. Sorry.

If you are not an "author" or "investigator" and I can't search for your name in those fields in pubmed, then you didn't do anything worthy of citation. Again, I know it's a bummer, but if you include a publication that you are only mentioned in the acknowledgements it looks desperate.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm assuming that things will be taken into context. I mean, obviously having first authorship on a Science paper is going to be looked upon more favorably than some lower position on a low-impact journal which in turn is better than not having published at all. I don't imagine an admissions committee sitting around saying, "Well, this guy has x number of publications but he appears to only be the 4th author. We would have accepted him if he was first author but let's put his application in the trashcan instead." I feel that publications can only help - important papers in which you play an important role will help more.
 
typhoonegator said:
It's perfectly acceptable to have a CV section of "Abstracts and Congress Proceedings" where you list any abstracts that get published, or posters presented at national/international meetings. Once you have a bunch of publications, you don't want to clutter that section of your CV up with posters or abstracts. You should also have a section of "Seminar talks" as well as "Invited talks", in my opinion.

Regarding placement on the author list, I wouldn't worry too much about it at this point. Admission committees and interviewers know it is hard to get a first author publication (other than a case report) when you are so junior (not talking about PhDs here). Being involved is the most important thing.
Click to expand...

Can you clarify what that term means? I haven't heard of it.

Also, what about talks that also have abstracts associated with them for a CV? List both in their respective categories?
 
Congress proceedings is for presentations given at a national conference. Most of these conferences are called "Annual Congress" or something like that, hence the term. These will almost always have an abstract associated with them, but can take the form of a small talk and/or poster presentation, which may be placed as part of a Professors' Rounds. Not all abstracts accepted for a meeting get to have a poster. Note that this is not for podium talks or invited talks. A podium talk should be listed under "Invited Talks/Presentations" along with grand rounds, etc.

By putting Abstracts and Congress Proceedings together, you can say abstract and poster presented at *** in 2/2010, rather than having a talk/poster and an abstract with the same name, presented at the same place, under different headings. That just looks like you're padding your CV!
 
typhoonegator said:
Congress proceedings is for presentations given at a national conference. Most of these conferences are called "Annual Congress" or something like that, hence the term. These will almost always have an abstract associated with them, but can take the form of a small talk and/or poster presentation, which may be placed as part of a Professors' Rounds. Not all abstracts accepted for a meeting get to have a poster. Note that this is not for podium talks or invited talks. A podium talk should be listed under "Invited Talks/Presentations" along with grand rounds, etc.

By putting Abstracts and Congress Proceedings together, you can say abstract and poster presented at *** in 2/2010, rather than having a talk/poster and an abstract with the same name, presented at the same place, under different headings. That just looks like you're padding your CV!
Click to expand...

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for following the thread and answering questions. Do most people make the distinction that they were the one doing the presenting of the poster/giving the talk, or do they just list it if it has their name on it? I have a few talks/poster presentations, but I have a lot if you include everything with my name on it.
 
For talks, only list if you gave it. Abstracts, OK to list if you are on the author list. For posters, the same. So if someone else posted an abstract with your name on it, you can list it as an abstract, but don't list the talk that went with it unless you gave it.
 
You also need to take into account the type of research being published. It's very hard (practically impossible) for an undergrad to first author a paper in a reputable journal in basic science. That spot is reserved for the post-doc you most likely work with. Any collaboration with grad students / other post-docs in the lab will likely fill the 2nd, 3rd, etc. positions, then if you're lucky, you get the next spot.

Clinical research I feel is different. Going through mounds of files, inputting data, running all the possible statistics on the data, then typing it up is a relatively short process and can land you a first author paper pretty easily in a few months as opposed to a few years in basic science.

Basic science research > clinical research in terms of difficulty landing an authorship on a paper, so I would think they are viewed different.
 
typhoonegator said:
For talks, only list if you gave it. Abstracts, OK to list if you are on the author list. For posters, the same. So if someone else posted an abstract with your name on it, you can list it as an abstract, but don't list the talk that went with it unless you gave it.
Click to expand...
Cool, thanks for your help.
 
JJMrK said:
OP, are you just worried about listing it on AMCAS? Just do a category that's "Publications, Abstracts, and Presentations" or something to that effect and list everything there in 3 sub-categories.

Any publication you have will stand out.
Click to expand...

I agree. As an undergrad, any publication can only help you, IMO.
 
Alright, last question. Thanks for sticking with me. I need to make a CV for a scholarship, and I figure it's worth making it comprehensive now so I can add/subtract things later.

A couple of times I've given talks at conferences. These have abstracts associated with them. Right now I have the abstracts in an "Abstracts/Conferences" section and basically the same thing in a "Presentations" category. It sorta seems like padding. The other thing I can see doing is just listing the title (the talk and abstract obviously have the same title) in the Abstracts section and writing "Abstract and Talk" or something after it. The problem with that is that then I have nothing for the Presentations section, so it doesn't necessarily seem like I've done any at first glance.
 
When people here say "Abstracts" do they mean same thing as "Poster Presentation"?
 
How does a 2nd authorship (as an undergrad) on a paper look out of 8 authors?
 
iamxp said:
When people here say "Abstracts" do they mean same thing as "Poster Presentation"?
Click to expand...

No. An abstract is something that gets published in a booklet from a conference. Not all abstracts have an associated poster, and not all posters will have an associated abstract (if the conference doesn't put out a booklet).
 
Last edited:
As long as you are able to passionately talk about your research, any peer-reviewed journal publication should. Be ready to answer any questions in your interviews.
 
JJMrK said:
As far as publications: any publication will put you ahead of 90% of applicants.
Click to expand...

This. After your mandatory good MCAT, good GPA, good PS, good LORs, and good volunteering, this is the #1 booster. If you've got a pub you're in really good shape.
 
rockaction said:
This. After your mandatory good MCAT, good GPA, good PS, good LORs, and good volunteering, this is the #1 booster. If you've got a pub you're in really good shape.
Click to expand...

I think especially at research-oriented schools, it will be even more of a booster to your application. Some secondaries even ask you to list publications (Stanford comes to mind).
 
Nafis64 said:
Thanks, but yea if you have a phd then it would be different since you have the opportunity to do your own research and obtain funding etc. With just a BA your placed at the back end to the phds and mds
Click to expand...


With a BS or when I was still in undergrad, I was still first author to my articles and in my presentations. All my coauthors had PhDs, I was the only one who didn't. Where I have studied (and I've studied at several universities), the person who provided the funding but did little else was always last authorship.
 
it really depends on the ethical stand of the people you're working for. I hear some of my friends complaining of being one of the last authors even though they did most of the work for a project. always always clarify that before starting a project. Run away from people who say that PhDs or MDs always go first. that is absolute BS. I've found that most PIs are very ethical about this, so just work for one of them.
 
Do publications come up alot during interviews? (even if you are not first author on a publication)
 
Crupen said:
Do publications come up alot during interviews? (even if you are not first author on a publication)
Click to expand...

I didn't have any when I interviewed, but I did have a bunch of posters/abstracts/talks. If you've been extensively involved in some type of research, it will definitely come up.
 
I was 1st author on an abstract and two posters. It never really came up in interviews though which I think was an anomaly.

Most schools don't expect UG's to come in with 1st authorship in Cell or anything like that. 4th author in a low impact journal is fine for most schools.
 
I'd imagine that a publication is a big plus to one's application but as to how much is anyone's guess.
 
Well, as far as how I'd evaluate it when reading an application:

First of all, any publication is a good thing, regardless of order. It's not easy to get on a paper as an undergrad and it probably took a reasonably big contribution. To me, quality of journal matters more than author placement, simply bc author placement can be pretty arbitrary.

Regarding abstracts, I think this is a bit more complicated. I'd say quality of conference is probably most important, approximately equal to contribution (whether the student was a presenter, oral > poster) followed later by order on the abstract (although obviously usually, but not always, presenters are first author)

keep in mind that certain interviewers or adcom members may not care anywhere near as much about research than me so their views may be way different.
 
TaylorMDhopeful said:
It probably goes. 1st or 2nd author high impact journal>1st or 2nd lower>not 1st or 2nd high>not 1st or 2nd low>1st or 2nd conference/abstract>not 1st or 2nd conference/abstract
Click to expand...

Also, on the conference thing, it depends a lot. I think it's a bit more impressive to give an oral presentation at a national meeting then to be buried deep on the author list in a minor journal, but others might disagree. A lot of it really does depend on how you describe it also.
 
I was third author on a JCI paper and that's all any interviewer could talk about. Especially the PhD ones.

I made sure to spend a week memorizing every aspect of the paper, and more besides.
 
Morsetlis said:
I was third author on a JCI paper and that's all any interviewer could talk about. Especially the PhD ones.

I made sure to spend a week memorizing every aspect of the paper, and more besides.
Click to expand...

I doubt they quizzed you on some random thing in the paper!
 
Actually, I was asked specific things about my research at interviews and I'd certainly ask interviewees about things I found interesting in their research.
 
drizzt3117 said:
Actually, I was asked specific things about my research at interviews and I'd certainly ask interviewees about things I found interesting in their research.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I found this to be true as well.
 
How are poster presentations at Research Symposiums viewed by adcoms? I've done 3 (1 at my university, 2 out of state at different universities). Worth listing all of them under one entry?
 
iamxp said:
I doubt they quizzed you on some random thing in the paper!
Click to expand...

My advisor told me to memorize the immunology well in case I met an immunologist :x

Luckily I was interviewed by a rad oncologist and an endocrinologist.

If you can sound like a PhD while explaining your paper, I think that's a huge plus. If all you can do is "uh so I spent 5 hours genotyping and plasmid cloning... this gene..." and " the inflammatory response is automatic when this gene activates this receptor on these cells"...

The key is to be specific. Most people won't know wtf a fumaryle-acetyle-hydrolase is or what the catabolism pathway for tyrosine is, but if you just say "this drug prevents the first enzyme in the tyrosine catabolism pathway" without saying specifics, they'll start to quiz you and it's all downhill from there.
 
Crupen said:
How are poster presentations at Research Symposiums viewed by adcoms? I've done 3 (1 at my university, 2 out of state at different universities). Worth listing all of them under one entry?
Click to expand...

Generally any presentation is good, although they aren't as good as a presentation at a national meeting or publication. I would definitely list them.
 
Crupen said:
How are poster presentations at Research Symposiums viewed by adcoms? I've done 3 (1 at my university, 2 out of state at different universities). Worth listing all of them under one entry?
Click to expand...

Yep, I'd list them all.

Morsetlis said:
My advisor told me to memorize the immunology well in case I met an immunologist :x

Luckily I was interviewed by a rad oncologist and an endocrinologist.

If you can sound like a PhD while explaining your paper, I think that's a huge plus. If all you can do is "uh so I spent 5 hours genotyping and plasmid cloning... this gene..." and " the inflammatory response is automatic when this gene activates this receptor on these cells"...

The key is to be specific. Most people won't know wtf a fumaryle-acetyle-hydrolase is or what the catabolism pathway for tyrosine is, but if you just say "this drug prevents the first enzyme in the tyrosine catabolism pathway" without saying specifics, they'll start to quiz you and it's all downhill from there.
Click to expand...

TBH, I've had better results talking in generalities, but this is probably because my research has nothing to do with medicine (and probably nothing to do with anything an interviewer is going to care about). I gave a brief 1-2 minute overview when asked what I did, and then just answered any specific questions the interviewer had. Then they didn't have to sit through it if they weren't actually interested. When the interviewer wanted to know more, I sometimes went on for 20-30 minutes answering questions. If they didn't care/weren't interested, they asked about something else.
 
I guess it depends on the person then.
 
Yeah, I mean I think it's best to talk big-picture, but give details where appropriate, especially if the interviewer is apt to know something about the work you've done.

For me though, it was almost all big picture, since I knew they'd have no idea what I was talking about, and I wanted to present it in the most interesting light possible.
 
drizzt3117 said:
Generally any presentation is good, although they aren't as good as a presentation at a national meeting or publication. I would definitely list them.
Click to expand...

Then should it be mentioned what that national meeting was? Or is it something that the adcom would google if they were curious?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
importance of SMPs
Replies
4
Views
533
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
S
Listing abstracts/posters - not the presenter/1st author?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
D
Importance of going to a school with a home program in anesthesia?
Replies
2
Views
486
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
R
  • Question Question
Advice on how to proceed in senior year of college
Replies
2
Views
264
LunaOri
LunaOri
D
Lack of volunteering, good hours in research, leadership, and clinical
Replies
4
Views
858
Med Ed
Med Ed
Top