Please list a few mid-low tier pathology journals

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
P

Pathogator

New Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Did a paper - doing some journal hopping; reviewers can be so mean!!!

regarding our title lol: "Such arrogant egotistical statements have no place in rigorous scientific writing."

Anyways, can you all name a few mid-tier/even low tier surgical pathology journals that may take a paper that a higher-tier journal would reject.

Welcome to academia!
Members don't see this ad.
 
I thought pathology journals were intrinsically low-mid tier.

Pathogator said:
Did a paper - doing some journal hopping; reviewers can be so mean!!!

regarding our title lol: "Such arrogant egotistical statements have no place in rigorous scientific writing."

Anyways, can you all name a few mid-tier/even low tier surgical pathology journals that may take a paper that a higher-tier journal would reject.

Welcome to academia!
Click to expand...
 
Reviewers are almost universally difficult. You don't get a paper through without multiple revisions unless you're the editor, and even then there is a token tendency to request you alter something. If they've outright rejected it that's one thing, but if they're just asking you to change some things before re-submitting, that's not exactly rare or unexpected.

There aren't that many mainstream pure "pathology" journals. But there's also nothing wrong with adding a paragraph to make it more enticing for one of the more clinical or clinical subspecialty journals -- all depends on what you've got.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Unofficial impact factor guide

2517474.png
 
Pathogator said:
Did a paper - doing some journal hopping; reviewers can be so mean!!!

regarding our title lol: "Such arrogant egotistical statements have no place in rigorous scientific writing."

Anyways, can you all name a few mid-tier/even low tier surgical pathology journals that may take a paper that a higher-tier journal would reject.

Welcome to academia!
Click to expand...

Lol. What was the title?
 
gbwillner said:
Lol. What was the title?
Click to expand...

The title had reference to the fact that it was the first study of its kind lol

The journal we actually submitted it to was a medicine-related journal because the study has more clinical implications.

Thanks for that list caffeinegirl,

What is the source for that list?

Thank you!
 
Also, my experience has been that even when your reviewer is an a-hole, the suggestions are often basically on target. Or at least there is something there that can improve your paper. Even if the review just makes it obvious that the reviewer didn't understand what you were saying.
 
caffeinegirl said:
http://impactfactor.weebly.com/pathology.html

Random site found on Google, that's why I called it unofficial. But I do agree with the overall feel to it, and it's just a guide...

As for the top ranking journal, I don't think it's the annual review of plant pathology (although plant pathology is a very interesting field) but rather the Annual Review of Pathology: Mechanisms of Disease
http://www.annualreviews.org/journal/pathmechdis
Click to expand...

Hmmm...I always thought the American Journal of Surgical Pathology was the best journal?
 
Pathogator said:
Did a paper - doing some journal hopping; reviewers can be so mean!!!

regarding our title lol: "Such arrogant egotistical statements have no place in rigorous scientific writing."

Anyways, can you all name a few mid-tier/even low tier surgical pathology journals that may take a paper that a higher-tier journal would reject.

Welcome to academia!
Click to expand...

Haha, well I guess that means that AJSP has no rigorous scientific writing, since one cannot submit a paper to that journal without getting an arrogant egotistical statement as a criticism!

I always kind of liked human path - seemed to have a rigorous yet fair evaluation process. AJSP and modern path are almost completely focused on whose name is on the paper. They supposedly blind the reviewers to the authors, but the reviewers probably figure it out by reading the methods section.

I remember in residency we submitted a paper to AJSP about some case series of a relatively rare thing. It got rejected with some academic blather which had nothing to do with quality of the cases. Then about a year later they published a paper with fewer cases of the same thing by a better known expert.
 
KeratinPearls said:
Hmmm...I always thought the American Journal of Surgical Pathology was the best journal?
Click to expand...

It's all subjective. Remember, impact factor is just a number..and Modern Path slightly surpassed AJSP's impact factor a couple of years ago.

Personally, I find many of the AJSP articles to be more relevant to daily practice..although there are some Modern Path articles that are great as well. The molecular stuff, albeit it interesting and furthering the field, is not as relevant to the daily grind.

And, sadly, the dermpath journals, J Cut Path and Am J Dermpath all have impact factors around 1.4 and 1.2. 🙁 But they're still helpful towards daily practice (I prefer J Cut Path).
 
Members don't see this ad :)
lipomas said:
I remember in residency we submitted a paper to AJSP about some case series of a relatively rare thing. It got rejected with some academic blather which had nothing to do with quality of the cases. Then about a year later they published a paper with fewer cases of the same thing by a better known expert.
Click to expand...

Similar thing happened to me with another journal. I think our anonymity was recognized due to the methods section and we were rejected. Then lo and behold, about six months later an eerily similar study was published by a "rival" in the field. Sigh...glad to not be in academia anymore. All of this was unnecessary stress.
 
caffeinegirl said:
Similar thing happened to me with another journal. I think our anonymity was recognized due to the methods section and we were rejected. Then lo and behold, about six months later an eerily similar study was published by a "rival" in the field. Sigh...glad to not be in academia anymore. All of this was unnecessary stress.
Click to expand...

Haha, that happened to me as well. Then our paper got published by human path and gets cited by these experts anyway. AJSP is like a private club. Occasionally they will let an outsider in. I'm not sure if they consciously display this bias or not, however.
 
caffeinegirl said:
...glad to not be in academia anymore. All of this was unnecessary stress.
Click to expand...


I totally agree with you. I am in the same boat.

I had been fan of academia before I completed my fellowship and was determined to go for an academic practice. Due to several factors, things went in the reverse and I ended up in a private practice. Although I was sad in the beginning, I am happy to realize now that I am in the right place.....
 
Last edited:
Copy and paste of what I posted before. Read my advice in the bottom.





Academic Practice
You have residents who can gross specimen, do autopsies, and write the reports for you
You have to teach the residents and medical students. Give lectures (make powerpoints) and microscope teaching sessions (e.g. unknown cases)
Research and publishing. In some academic institutions, every attending has to show certain number of papers or academic work every 1-2 years.
Will be assigned academic rank which is promoted based on certain criteria (assistant, associate and then full professor)
Less payment (120-250K)
Have the opportunity to subspecialize and sign out cases belonging to your area of interest only.
Good for people who live to work (if you want pathology to take your whole life..spending time at home working on publications and teaching lectures)
Because of the competition in research, publication and others, the environment is not very friendly.

Private Practice
No residents. You do things on your own with some sort of help from pathology assistants.
No teaching. Just focus on your sign out. Make diagnosis, and write your report. No home preparation for lectures.
No research or publication. Enjoy the weekends and enjoy life!!
No academic ranking. You are (staff pathologist) for ever. In the mid of your career however, you can apply to become a lab director..That's it!
More payment (usually exceeds 200-300K+). The payment can be higher than that when you become lab director.
Less chance to sign out cases of your own interest only but still can develop interest or expertise in one area. Also, you may be required to do CP work besides AP.
Good for people who work to live (sign out and go home…nothing more to worry about).
Usually more friendly and "benign" environment as there is less competition among the staff.


What I listed above is based on my individual experience. Others may share different opinions/experiences. What I posted is not right in all the settings as there are many exceptions. For instance, some community-based hospitals are affiliated with universities and have a very good sense of academia. Some academic centers on the other hand do not have residencies.

My sincere advice is to go for what you have passion for. However, be always prepared for all the options as you will be CONTROLLED with the openings and OFFERS you get at the time you complete your residency/fellowship. If you get an offer for a job with a very tempting payment and in a very nice place/city, go for it regardless of other factors (just my opinion).

My second advice is to work on your diagnostic skills. Don't spend all your time to write papers during your residency (or to let your attendings "use you" to write papers for them!). Nothing like being good on the microscope. If you are not able to write a good report or to sign out simple and difficult cases correctly, I wouldn't care about how many papers you published or in what journals you published...All the research or papers won't help you when you fail the Boards, lose your job or get your license suspended because of your questionable diagnostic competency.

The bottom line is to be a good pathologist with decent diagnostic skills and be able to make good reports for your patients, wherever you are...... This is the ONLY way to secure yourself throughout your career.
 
Patho2009 said:
Copy and paste of what I posted before. Read my advice in the bottom.





Academic Practice
You have residents who can gross specimen, do autopsies, and write the reports for you
You have to teach the residents and medical students. Give lectures (make powerpoints) and microscope teaching sessions (e.g. unknown cases)
Research and publishing. In some academic institutions, every attending has to show certain number of papers or academic work every 1-2 years.
Will be assigned academic rank which is promoted based on certain criteria (assistant, associate and then full professor)
Less payment (120-250K)
Have the opportunity to subspecialize and sign out cases belonging to your area of interest only.
Good for people who live to work (if you want pathology to take your whole life..spending time at home working on publications and teaching lectures)
Because of the competition in research, publication and others, the environment is not very friendly.

Private Practice
No residents. You do things on your own with some sort of help from pathology assistants.
No teaching. Just focus on your sign out. Make diagnosis, and write your report. No home preparation for lectures.
No research or publication. Enjoy the weekends and enjoy life!!
No academic ranking. You are (staff pathologist) for ever. In the mid of your career however, you can apply to become a lab director..That's it!
More payment (usually exceeds 200-300K+). The payment can be higher than that when you become lab director.
Less chance to sign out cases of your own interest only but still can develop interest or expertise in one area. Also, you may be required to do CP work besides AP.
Good for people who work to live (sign out and go home…nothing more to worry about).
Usually more friendly and "benign" environment as there is less competition among the staff.


What I listed above is based on my individual experience. Others may share different opinions/experiences. What I posted is not right in all the settings as there are many exceptions. For instance, some community-based hospitals are affiliated with universities and have a very good sense of academia. Some academic centers on the other hand do not have residencies.

My sincere advice is to go for what you have passion for. However, be always prepared for all the options as you will be CONTROLLED with the openings and OFFERS you get at the time you complete your residency/fellowship. If you get an offer for a job with a very tempting payment and in a very nice place/city, go for it regardless of other factors (just my opinion).

My second advice is to work on your diagnostic skills. Don't spend all your time to write papers during your residency (or to let your attendings "use you" to write papers for them!). Nothing like being good on the microscope. If you are not able to write a good report or to sign out simple and difficult cases correctly, I wouldn't care about how many papers you published or in what journals you published...All the research or papers won't help you when you fail the Boards, lose your job or get your license suspended because of your questionable diagnostic competency.

The bottom line is to be a good pathologist with decent diagnostic skills and be able to make good reports for your patients, wherever you are...... This is the ONLY way to secure yourself throughout your career.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

However, I think there are residents who work on pumping out multiple publications to obtain a competitive fellowship like dermpath and focus on it diagnostically in their residency/fellowship training and then do dermpath for the rest of their lives. Same goes for ppl in GI/GU who just signout GI/GU biopsies everyday. That way you are restricting yourself obviously.
 
Last edited:
If you have passion for writing, then do it. This might distinguish you from your colleagues and help you secure a good fellowship or job position. However, you should not let writing take significant time of your training. Writing a single paper usually takes months. Wouldn't be better to use all this time going over interesting cases, reading about them or even to attend a sign out of a good staff pathologist or stick to one on his/her frozen section day and promote your skills in the diagnosis and reporting of frozens?

Part of the problem is that publishing is now very emphasized on fellowships' applications causing "publication mania" among residents in-training. Recentlly we encounter candidates with a long list of publications who apply for private practice positions. This means that publishing in those candidiates is "used" to compete for well-paid positions in private practice. Those people likely stop writing once they start their job. In other words, they do not write and publish to be academic pathologists.

While having a good number of publications indicates you are a good writer, it does not necessarily mean that you are a good pathologist (although writing sometimes helps you be confident in a specific area). I personally know pathologists with PhD background and tons of papers and they have poor diagnostic skills. I call them "paper pathologists".

The ACGME considers publications as part of the training parameters on the evaluation forms of the residents. May be you need to do some to fulfill this requirement but in the end try to balance things out.

Be cautious not to let publishing override your diagnostics.


This advice is based on my individual experience. Others might disagree. When I started practicing, I regreted the time I spent in writing during my training. I wish if I had used this time in working on the areas of my weakness.
 
Last edited:
Patho2009 said:
If you have passion for writing, then do it. This might distinguish you from your colleagues and help you secure a good fellowship or job position. However, you should not let writing take significant time of your training. Writing a single paper usually takes months. Wouldn't be better to use all this time going over interesting cases, reading about them or even to attend a sign out of a good staff pathologist or stick to one on his/her frozen section day and promote your skills in the diagnosis and reporting of frozens?

Part of the problem is that publishing is now very emphasized on fellowships' applications causing "publication mania" among residents in-training. Recentlly we encounter candidates with a long list of publications who apply for private practice positions. This means that publishing in those candidiates is "used" to compete for well-paid positions in private practice. Those people likely stop writing once they start their job. In other words, they do not write and publish to be academic pathologists.

While having a good number of publications indicates you are a good writer, it does not necessarily mean that you are a good pathologist (although writing sometimes helps you be confident in a specific area). I personally know pathologists with PhD background and tons of papers and they have poor diagnostic skills. I call them "paper pathologists".

The ACGME considers publications as part of the training parameters on the evaluation forms of the residents. May be you need to do some to fulfill this requirement but in the end try to balance things out.

Be cautious not to let publishing override your diagnostics.


This advice is based on my individual experience. Others might disagree. When I started practicing, I regreted the time I spent in writing during my training. I wish if I had used this time in working on the areas of my weakness.
Click to expand...

i disagree. i think writing forces residents to review the literature and learn diagnostically useful information in the process. also, sometimes research involves reviewing many slides (sometimes with attendings), which can help polish diagnostic skills as well..

while publishing just for the resume isnt the best thing, some people actually don't mind writing and do it out of enthusiasm for a rare case or question. publishing cases which were rare and diagnostically challenging helps other pathologists who encounter similar tumors in the future, and sometimes raises important questions..
 
I completely disagree with pathologee and caffienegirl

Writing and publishing journal articles forces you to learn so ****ing much about a particular area. You can be a resident and if you do a large study and research the article, then you have a better command of that area that 99.99% of community pathologists.

Residents, don't listen to these pathologee and caffienegirl. Research and publication is an inherently essential and important aspect of medicine. Without we would have nothing. All general practice community practice pathologists do is simply co-opt what university based academic pathologists pioneer.

In fact people that go to grade A residency programs and then go to private practice are a total waste of a residency spot. We give you so much and you give nothing back. You don't teach, you don't progress the field, you don't become leaders. All you do is sign out cases based on what we taught you and try to make as much money as possible. Pathetic
 
Last edited:
The question wasn't "is research useful?" It was "what are some low-mid tier pathology journals?"

Why are you ragging on private practice people? They sign out every single day, make difficult diagnoses everyday, send you interesting cases, attend your conferences, read your articles, and buy your books. The grade A residency programs need to make sure that the private practice oriented people are ready to go.


pathstudent said:
I completely disagree with pathologee and caffienegirl

Writing and publishing journal articles forces you to learn so ****ing much about a particular area. You can be a resident and if you do a large study and research the article, then you have a better command of that area that 99.99% of community pathologists.

Residents, don't listen to these pathologee and caffienegirl. Research and publication is an inherently essential and important aspect of medicine. Without we would have nothing. All general practice community practice pathologists do is simply co-opt what university based academic pathologists pioneer.

In fact people that go to grade A residency programs and then go to private practice are a total waste of a residency spot. We give you so much and you give nothing back. You don't teach, you don't progress the field, you don't become leaders. All you do is sign out cases based on what we taught you and try to make as much money as possible. Pathetic
Click to expand...
 
Have to agree here. A timely and relevant research project can be a great learning opportunity. The flip side that a bad one can be a complete waste of time. Got to choose wisely.

Also, if a person is at an academic program, research should be part of the job description as a resident. There are plenty of community programs that will be happy to train you to sign out cases. If you want the "name brand" value of a high profile academic program then you need to pay the piper and do some research. And this is coming from someone in private practice.
 
pathstudent said:
I completely disagree with pathologee and caffienegirl

Writing and publishing journal articles forces you to learn so ****ing much about a particular area. You can be a resident and if you do a large study and research the article, then you have a better command of that area that 99.99% of community pathologists.

Residents, don't listen to these pathologee and caffienegirl. Research and publication is an inherently essential and important aspect of medicine. Without we would have nothing. All general practice community practice pathologists do is simply co-opt what university based academic pathologists pioneer.

In fact people that go to grade A residency programs and then go to private practice are a total waste of a residency spot. We give you so much and you give nothing back. You don't teach, you don't progress the field, you don't become leaders. All you do is sign out cases based on what we taught you and try to make as much money as possible. Pathetic
Click to expand...

Wow, way to epitomise all of the worst qualities of academic pathologists. Thank you so much for being such a guiding light for all of us simple-minded private practice pathologists; us, the "wastes of residency spots."

While there are a great many incredible innovators and teachers in academia, there is also a huge amount of bad or useless science being done (80+% of published articles, I'd say) and lazy, dead wood filling departments.
 
LNsquasher said:
Wow, way to epitomise all of the worst qualities of academic pathologists. Thank you so much for being such a guiding light for all of us simple-minded private practice pathologists; us, the "wastes of residency spots."

While there are a great many incredible innovators and teachers in academia, there is also a huge amount of bad or useless science being done (80+% of published articles, I'd say) and lazy, dead wood filling departments.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that came across a little harsh. But it is disappointing for me to see residents/pathologists dis academics when academics taught you everything you know and set the standard for how you practice. The least you can do when you are in training is get heavily involved in teaching med students, junior residents and at least do a couple poster at USCAP.
 
2121115 said:
..snip..
A timely and relevant research project can be a great learning opportunity. The flip side that a bad one can be a complete waste of time. Got to choose wisely.
..snip..
Click to expand...

There's a difference between getting published and publishing something useful. The all-too-typical publication born from simply wanting to get one's name on something may end up being nothing but clutter making future literature searches more difficult and less fruitful. These days we seem to be surrounded by a lot of publication white noise, or worse, publications not well thought out or dripping with bias and/or assumptions, conclusions which don't really follow from the work, etc. There -is- such a thing as a good case report, they're just not all that common. And there -is- such a thing as a poor metanalysis. As a discipline I suspect we need to get back to a focus on quality rather than blind quantity.
 
Pathstudent, I think you may have misunderstood the intention of my post.
What I don't miss about academia is the politics, such as the example I mentioned.

I absolutely respect those in academics, and the goals of academia. Without the efforts of academic departments to further the field, both through research and leadership, then our field would go nowhere. Academics is where I was trained and where I learned my field. I will always be proud of where I came from, as it allowed me to be where I am now.

My point was, that in an ideal world, good research would get published. That's not always the case.
 
caffeinegirl said:
Pathstudent, I think you may have misunderstood the intention of my post.
What I don't miss about academia is the politics, such as the example I mentioned.

I absolutely respect those in academics, and the goals of academia. Without the efforts of academic departments to further the field, both through research and leadership, then our field would go nowhere. Academics is where I was trained and where I learned my field. I will always be proud of where I came from, as it allowed me to be where I am now.

My point was, that in an ideal world, good research would get published. That's not always the case.
Click to expand...

Understood.
 
pathstudent sounds like an AJSP reviewer.

Looks briefly at argument, decides he already knows what it is about so he dashes off some harsh comments. Before submitting, checks to make sure that the comments did not come from someone who is equally or more famous than he.

Very similar to my comments from AJSP! Seemed like one reviewer had not read the article at all, and the other had prejudged it and then picked at minutae.
 
If you guys don't like how AJSP handles its review process, send your papers elsewhere. I have a strong suspicion, however, that it's much ado about nothing. No one likes to be criticised, no matter how valid the complaint. AJSP also can't publish every paper that comes across, and they have to select them somehow. Hopefully, those selections are made on paper quality, but based on what I've seen I wouldn't be so sure.
 
pathstudent said:
I completely disagree with pathologee and caffienegirl

Writing and publishing journal articles forces you to learn so ****ing much about a particular area. You can be a resident and if you do a large study and research the article, then you have a better command of that area that 99.99% of community pathologists.

Residents, don't listen to these pathologee and caffienegirl. Research and publication is an inherently essential and important aspect of medicine. Without we would have nothing. All general practice community practice pathologists do is simply co-opt what university based academic pathologists pioneer.

In fact people that go to grade A residency programs and then go to private practice are a total waste of a residency spot. We give you so much and you give nothing back. You don't teach, you don't progress the field, you don't become leaders. All you do is sign out cases based on what we taught you and try to make as much money as possible. Pathetic
Click to expand...

I'll not negate the importance of academia, but you make it seem as if us poor schlubs at St. Elsewhere spend our professional lives parroting a bunch of professors (many of whom can't agree among themselves.)
I know I am not alone that after 30 years of being a simple glass pusher i have arrived at the point where I can say "In my opinion" or "In my experience" and it counts for something.
 
In fact people that go to grade A residency programs and then go to private practice are a total waste of a residency spot. We give you so much and you give nothing back. You don't teach, you don't progress the field, you don't become leaders. All you do is sign out cases based on what we taught you and try to make as much money as possible. Pathetic
Click to expand...


I've been debating whether or not to feed the fire. But I do think I should defend myself against the allegation that I was a wasted spot in an academic program. There are excellent pathologists in private practice, and excellent pathologists in academia. Leaders arise from both fields (take for example, our past CAP president), and I wouldn't knock down either field.

And, as in any field of medicine, our primary goal is to aid our patients. In our field, it is through diagnosis (ie, accurate and timely diagnoses that are relevant, clear, etc). I enjoy clinicopathologic correlation and interaction with my colleagues in other specialties, which include educational presentations for CME. And, in the future, I look forward to being a part of hospital/administrative leadership. I personally do not enjoy the investigative/research aspect of medicine (be it benchwork or clinical studies). However, I took advantage of the opportunities I had during my time in academics, and published quite a bit and took part in many collaborative projects in presentations...to at least learn as much as I could during the time I was there. In that respect, I think based on pathstudent's comments, I was not a wasted spot since I produced multiple publications for multiple attendings.

And, I do not care what others may think about entering private practice, since I am secure with my choice of a career and enjoy it immensely. To each his/her own...and everyone should respect that (not that they always do). When I voiced my clear intention to enter the private practice arena, many attendings and peers voiced their "disappointment." This was a very similar attitude that clinical attendings in medical school gave me when I said I was entering pathology. And, just as when I chose pathology instead of a clinical field, I brushed them off and showed them I was confident and happy with my decision...which still continues to be true.
 
Last edited:
KCShaw said:
There's a difference between getting published and publishing something useful. The all-too-typical publication born from simply wanting to get one's name on something may end up being nothing but clutter making future literature searches more difficult and less fruitful. snip...
Click to expand...

So true!!! Sadly, I have probably contributed to some of that clutter (at least some of my abstracts!), to my shame.

Regarding the utility and worth of private practice docs: are they not still diagnosing patients? Is that not THE primary and most important goal of our field? Certainly, we have to pay it forward, provide for the future, and advance our knowledge. But diagnosing disease is what we are supposed to be doing. At least, that is how I understand it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Conferences not listed in Pathology Outlines?
Replies
5
Views
1K
univlad
U
WildWing
FAQ - Pathology
Replies
2
Views
1K
mike-sheree
mike-sheree
H
Pathology assistant arrangement
Replies
2
Views
1K
octopusprime
octopusprime
A
Pathology mid tier for number of applicants NRMP
Replies
5
Views
1K
airpods
A
C
2024 Pathology boards pass rates
Replies
17
Views
2K
coroner
coroner
Top