Nature and Science commentaries

[onelastpuff23]

I am curious to know how people view commentaries in high end journals such as Nature and Science. I am quite dissmisive as I do bench work. These are the hardest to get into. However, could these articles viewed as "Nature" or "Science" papers?

I suppose I would like to know the answer in the admissions process but I have a general curiosity as well.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[candav]

I think they're important for a number of reasons. They're written in a more accessible way, targeted to a larger (albeit still well-educated) population. They're often more provocative and elucidating than primary research papers, because they consider an entire body of work rather than a single data set. They express an opinion, which can be very interesting. They are often interdisciplinary, tying various areas of politics, economics, health and basic science. Because of this, they often (to me, at least) seem more "connected" and applicable to the real world.

I don't really see a comparison to basic science research articles; they serve different purposes.

ETA: Reading over this post, I feel I sound like I'm about to write an essay. I swear I'm not really this stuffy during the day; I tend to get more so around 3am.

 

[Valadi]

It's similar to an op-ed in the NY Times vs. a real article. Still very neat and cool to have, but you will not likely be cited by others.

Often in big journals commentaries are invited. What matters then is what your (and your labs') reputation is in the community. It's respectable to write a commentary, but, as mentioned, they serve a different purpose than an original manuscript.

If you have a commentary, correspondence, viewpoint, letter to the editor, or otherwise it is worth mentioning to adcoms at this stage in the game.

 

[varsityblue]

I think commentaries, LOEs or anything published in a tier 1 journal will be looked favorably upon by adcoms.

 

[onelastpuff23]

I think commentaries, LOEs or anything published in a tier 1 journal will be looked favorably upon by adcoms.

Interesting point. I have read a lot of them in the past few days and it appears that some of the commentaries are in social science fields that typically don't do hardcore science. For one, you will see a lot of ethics or public health commentaries, which are typically discounted as regular papers in Nature or Science. I suppose there's an argument that these people are publishing something of merit that could be just as prestigious

 

[Noah Capurso]

Commentaries have their place, as do Letters to the Editor, and would certainly be looked upon favorably by admission committees. They don't even need to be in Tier 1 journals. Anything published in a peer reviewed journal with you as an author should be listed on your application.

That being said, they are different than primary research articles and should be listed as such in your application. Do not write the citation on your application in such a way that it looks like a research paper. You should clearly state on your application that it is a commentary. This holds especially for big journals like Science, Nature, Cell, NEJM where an AdComm members or interviewers may have read the very issue you published in. I've heard a story about an applicant who listed a Letter to the Editor in NEJM on his application in such a way that it looked like a paper. His interviewer just happened to have a lot of back issues sitting around in the office and he pulled out the magazine to look up the paper during the interview. Needless to say, it was pretty uncomfortable when he found he saw that what was listed on this guy's application was not a full research paper but a half page Letter. So, include it on your app, but be honest and clear about what it is.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

Commentaries have their place, as do Letters to the Editor, and would certainly be looked upon favorably by admission committees. They don't even need to be in Tier 1 journals. Anything published in a peer reviewed journal with you as an author should be listed on your application.

That being said, they are different than primary research articles and should be listed as such in your application. Do not write the citation on your application in such a way that it looks like a research paper. You should clearly state on your application that it is a commentary. This holds especially for big journals like Science, Nature, Cell, NEJM where an AdComm members or interviewers may have read the very issue you published in. I've heard a story about an applicant who listed a Letter to the Editor in NEJM on his application in such a way that it looked like a paper. His interviewer just happened to have a lot of back issues sitting around in the office and he pulled out the magazine to look up the paper during the interview. Needless to say, it was pretty uncomfortable when he found he saw that what was listed on this guy's application was not a full research paper but a half page Letter. So, include it on your app, but be honest and clear about what it is.

+ infinity.

That's a very good point. It's very important to realize that commentaries and review articles are not the same as publishing primary research. If you're citing a commentary on your AMCAS app, IMHO, make sure to point out that it's not original research. That way, you don't have to worry about an adcom asking you about your research during an interview only to find out then that it actually wasn't primary research.

It's similar to an op-ed in the NY Times vs. a real article. Still very neat and cool to have, but you will not likely be cited by others.

Often in big journals commentaries are invited. What matters then is what your (and your labs') reputation is in the community. It's respectable to write a commentary, but, as mentioned, they serve a different purpose than an original manuscript.

If you have a commentary, correspondence, viewpoint, letter to the editor, or otherwise it is worth mentioning to adcoms at this stage in the game.

That's my understanding as well. Particularly in high-IF journals, you don't write a commentary and submit it in hopes of getting it published. Rather, you're asked to comment on something (ex. recent provocative articles, a review article, etc). Of course, not every journal has the "invitation only" rule.

 

[onelastpuff23]

+ infinity.

That's a very good point. It's very important to realize that commentaries and review articles are not the same as publishing primary research. If you're citing a commentary on your AMCAS app, IMHO, make sure to point out that it's not original research. That way, you don't have to worry about an adcom asking you about your research during an interview only to find out then that it actually wasn't primary research.


That's my understanding as well. Particularly in high-IF journals, you don't write a commentary and submit it in hopes of getting it published. Rather, you're asked to comment on something (ex. recent provocative articles, a review article, etc). Of course, not every journal has the "invitation only" rule.

That's the point I was making. Although the article is not "primary research" , a lot of other subjects don't do that type of research. For instance, sociologist, or ethicists aren't primary researchers but it doesn't mean their work is any less important. Just my two cents. I am curious to know what a commentary means to these people.