(1) I have 17 conference abstracts, 8 first author, 5 are poster days, the rest are national/international professional conferences. I don't have space for all of them, so I have written "12 abstracts in addition to the below" and then included 5 of the most significant posters.
However it still takes too many characters to list ALL the authors on every poster, so I've truncated the author list and include only the first two authors, et al. (my name appears on all of these since I am either first or second on those I actually listed).
However, by truncating the author name, the PI (senior author) is no longer apparent. You can still figure out which poster is from which lab by comparing to my full author list in my manuscripts section, where I had space for all the authors. Is this okay? I'm already compromising by listing less than half of my work, but fear the author list truncation is problematic.
(2) a) My research scholarships won't fit into 700-characters along with my short research description. Is it okay if I put them in a separate box all on their own?
b) What descriptions should I offer for research awards? I don't really know what to say about them, if they just sit out on their own in a box. It seems tacky to offer the dollar amount, but I feel there isn't much to say about them.
(3) I don't have space for all my manuscripts (4 + 2 reviews). The reviews are published in an undergraduate science journal, for which I held a high-ranking position. I displaced the reviews to the journal leadership activity. Now my publications are scattered throughout my AMCAS - 4 professional pubs in the pubs box, 2 undergrad pubs in the staff/leadership section. Is this disorganized? Will this dilute impact?
(4) I am listing all my shadowing experiences in one box. Do I have to provide a contact for each of these experiences?