order of publications on ERAS

[snorebel]

Help,
Even though I entered my publications in chronologic order on ERAS, when I go back to look at the CAF or CV view, they are all out of order, in no pattern whatsoever. Anybody else having this problem? Solutions anyone? Thanks for the help.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[staphaureus]

Help,
Even though I entered my publications in chronologic order on ERAS, when I go back to look at the CAF or CV view, they are all out of order, in no pattern whatsoever. Anybody else having this problem? Solutions anyone? Thanks for the help.

I don't know what's wrong with yours, but mine are arranged by type of publication, followed by the chronology.

 

[John Deere Gree]

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!

It's just a complete mess. Make sure dates are entered correctly, and ERAS will order them they way ERAS wants to order them.

 

[Samoa]

I emailed the people at ERAS about this, and they basically said they know about the glitch, it's been like that for years, and there's no way to fix it.

 

[Law2Doc]

Help,
Even though I entered my publications in chronologic order on ERAS, when I go back to look at the CAF or CV view, they are all out of order, in no pattern whatsoever. Anybody else having this problem? Solutions anyone? Thanks for the help.

Lots of folks have the same problem. It's not such a bad problem to have, it means you have lots of publications, though. But yeah, it would be nice if there was some way to manually order them. I don't see such option.

 

[Samoa]

The REALLY obnoxious thing is, if you try to delete and re-enter some of your publications because you don't like the order they're in, ERAS puts them in exactly the same place.

I don't see how they can be randomly assorted, as the people at ERAS claim they are, and still end up in exactly the same order like that. 😕

 

[NotAProgDirector]

I emailed the people at ERAS about this, and they basically said they know about the glitch, it's been like that for years, and there's no way to fix it.

This is a silly statement (by ERAS). Of course there's a way to fix it. They just don't think it's important enough to fix. And if we all agree that they should be sorted by date, then it's "relatively" easy to fix -- some journals are published without a specific date, like "Jan/Feb 2008" or "Winter 2008" and so they'd have to deal with that. But it's not really hard.

 

[John Deere Gree]

What funny is how anal retentive medical students can be. Seriously, does it really make a difference in the end...

 

[Law2Doc]

What funny is how anal retentive medical students can be. Seriously, does it really make a difference in the end...

Sure it does. I don't want my first author publication in Science to be ranked behind my letter to Penthouse Forum.

 

[Samoa]

This is a silly statement (by ERAS). Of course there's a way to fix it. They just don't think it's important enough to fix. And if we all agree that they should be sorted by date, then it's "relatively" easy to fix -- some journals are published without a specific date, like "Jan/Feb 2008" or "Winter 2008" and so they'd have to deal with that. But it's not really hard.

Yeah, my BS detectors were going off on that one, too. But I'm not going to waste my time arguing with some faceless bureaucrat.

 

[ranmyaku]

The REALLY obnoxious thing is, if you try to delete and re-enter some of your publications because you don't like the order they're in, ERAS puts them in exactly the same place.

I don't see how they can be randomly assorted, as the people at ERAS claim they are, and still end up in exactly the same order like that. 😕

It seems that they are arranged alphabetically. I have like 6 publications and that is the way they appear.

 

[Samoa]

It seems that they are arranged alphabetically. I have like 6 publications and that is the way they appear.

It's probably chance, as it likely was for the above poster to have his arranged in chronological order.

Mine is neither chronological nor alphabetical.

 

[ranmyaku]

It's probably chance, as it likely was for the above poster to have his arranged in chronological order.

Mine is neither chronological nor alphabetical.

I just tested it out by entering in some random journal publications into mine. It arranged them all alphabetically, since the names are listed first, it is thus sorted by the names in alphabetical order. ..At least it is on my computer and my ERAS application. The odds of that happening randomly with me entering 8 or 10 publications is astronomical.

Also, if I go in and add in a letter "A" for any of the publications in front of where the first name is...then it shifts it up to the top...bc A is the first letter in the alphabet obviously.

 

[Law2Doc]

Mine is neither chronological nor alphabetical.

Agreed. It sure isn't coming out alphabetical for a lot of us, ranmyaku. You must be doing something different. Or you are that lucky SOB for whom the absurd ordering format actually makes sense (ie if a couple million people flip a quarter 100 times, someone is likely to get all heads. That might be you. Start investing heavily in lottery tickets).

 

[NotAProgDirector]

If that's the case (that they are sorted alphabetically by the author field) then you can order them anyway you want, by putting numbers at the beginning:

i.e.:

aProgDirector, Scapula W, Blade. "What I did on my summer vacation", Journal of Summer Vacations, July 2007

Scapula W, aProgDirector. "A Universal Cure for All Cancers", NEJM, June 2009

Could become:

1. Scapula W, aProgDirector. "A Universal Cure for All Cancers", NEJM, June 2009

2. aProgDirector, Scapula W, Blade. "What I did on my summer vacation", Journal of Summer Vacations, July 2007

No idea if that would work or not. If you have more than 10 pubs, you'll run into trouble unless you number them 01, 02, etc -- else they'll sort into 1, 11, 12, 13, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.

 

[Law2Doc]

If that's the case (that they are sorted alphabetically by the author field) then you can order them anyway you want, by putting numbers at the beginning:

i.e.:

aProgDirector, Scapula W, Blade. "What I did on my summer vacation", Journal of Summer Vacations, July 2007

Scapula W, aProgDirector. "A Universal Cure for All Cancers", NEJM, June 2009

Could become:

1. Scapula W, aProgDirector. "A Universal Cure for All Cancers", NEJM, June 2009

2. aProgDirector, Scapula W, Blade. "What I did on my summer vacation", Journal of Summer Vacations, July 2007

No idea if that would work or not. If you have more than 10 pubs, you'll run into trouble unless you number them 01, 02, etc -- else they'll sort into 1, 11, 12, 13, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.

Considering you didn't like the idea of not following directions for the LORs, I'm sort of surprised that you would suggest listing publications in a way that isn't following the directions. ERAS spells out pretty explicitly how you are supposed to list publications, down to the punctuation. It doesn't indicate you can put in numbers/letters. I'm sure some program director somewhere is going to consider this a foul.

 

[ranmyaku]

If that's the case (that they are sorted alphabetically by the author field) then you can order them anyway you want, by putting numbers at the beginning:

i.e.:

aProgDirector, Scapula W, Blade. "What I did on my summer vacation", Journal of Summer Vacations, July 2007

Scapula W, aProgDirector. "A Universal Cure for All Cancers", NEJM, June 2009

Could become:

1. Scapula W, aProgDirector. "A Universal Cure for All Cancers", NEJM, June 2009

2. aProgDirector, Scapula W, Blade. "What I did on my summer vacation", Journal of Summer Vacations, July 2007

No idea if that would work or not. If you have more than 10 pubs, you'll run into trouble unless you number them 01, 02, etc -- else they'll sort into 1, 11, 12, 13, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.

Yes indeed that would work also. I just tried it and I can list mine in any order I want if I just put 1, 2, 3, etc. in front of the first name. I listed mine in reverse alphabetical order by doing this. I seriously think you guys are just not noticing the fact that they are like this based on the name field...not based on anything else. Either that or I have the only one that works this way.

 

[Law2Doc]

I seriously think you guys are just not noticing the fact that they are like this based on the name field...not based on anything else. Either that or I have the only one that works this way.

Um no, it's not. The names in the name field are largely the same and it's still putting it in some incomprehensible order not related to alphabet or date. Putting in numbers is not in strict compliance with how the instructions tell you to list the publications (and not how publications are listed on a CV anyhow), so I'm reluctant to do that.

 

[ranmyaku]

Um no, it's not. The names in the name field are largely the same and it's still putting it in some incomprehensible order not related to alphabet or date. Putting in numbers is not in strict compliance with how the instructions tell you to list the publications (and not how publications are listed on a CV anyhow), so I'm reluctant to do that.

Then take any of your pubs you have and put an 'A' at the beginning of the name field, and see whether or not it goes to the top of the list in the CV.

 

[bjackrian]

Scapula W, aProgDirector. "A Universal Cure for All Cancers", NEJM, June 2009

Ooh, I think you should have taken first author on this one.

 

[Law2Doc]

Then take any of your pubs you have and put an 'A' at the beginning of the name field, and see whether or not it goes to the top of the list in the CV.

What's the point in that? Even if you are correct, the publication still has to be listed according to the format ERAS prescribes. And that format results in a strange order for some of us. Sure we could doctor the pubs by adding extraneous letters or numbers to try to get the order we think best, but some program director somewhere is going to cry foul when you submit without following the same rules as ERAS requires and everyone else is using. All I'm saying is that using the rules ERAS requires, it reorders my pubs, and it doesn't do it chronologically, alphabetically (or at least not apparently so, although as you suggest, there may be ways to force it to) or in some other reasonable fashion. And since I plan to follow the rules, I'm stuck with a funky listing. That's life. Better to have this problem then not enough pubs.

 

[ranmyaku]

What's the point in that? Even if you are correct, the publication still has to be listed according to the format ERAS prescribes. And that format results in a strange order for some of us. Sure we could doctor the pubs by adding extraneous letters or numbers to try to get the order we think best, but some program director somewhere is going to cry foul when you submit without following the same rules as ERAS requires and everyone else is using. All I'm saying is that using the rules ERAS requires, it reorders my pubs, and it doesn't do it chronologically, alphabetically (or at least not apparently so, although as you suggest, there may be ways to force it to) or in some other reasonable fashion. And since I plan to follow the rules, I'm stuck with a funky listing. That's life. Better to have this problem then not enough pubs.

I never mentioned doing that as a method for getting them in the order you want. Aprogdirector is the one who mentioned that.

I simply stated that I think that is how you are getting the order you are getting. You disagreed with me and stated that I was incorrect. So, test it out yourself. What I have stated is the method the program is using to sort them.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

I never mentioned doing that as a method for getting them in the order you want. Aprogdirector is the one who mentioned that.

I mentioned it only as an experiment. It's a geek thing. Just list your pubs, and don't worry about the order.

 

[ranmyaku]

I mentioned it only as an experiment. It's a geek thing. Just list your pubs, and don't worry about the order.

Yeah I agree. I just wanted to figure out what the order actually was to the thing since everyone kept saying, oh it is totally random...which it is not. Even another poster mentioned that it is not random.

 

[Law2Doc]

Yeah I agree. I just wanted to figure out what the order actually was to the thing since everyone kept saying, oh it is totally random...which it is not. Even another poster mentioned that it is not random.

I don't think it's random. It's just not keyed to something a lot of us can determine or would choose.