Poster vs. Publication

[hopki099]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I'm not sure if this is common at other schools, but I got a $1700 grant this semester to do research. I'm presenting a first-authored poster on my research next week at a symposium. Is this somewhat comparable to a publication? Does it matter much that I'm the first author because it's just a poster? Give me some thoughts on how this weighs on my application please!

 

[Catalystik]

Is the symposium on campus, or at a regional or national meeting?

 

[Catalystik]

Here is LizzyM's input on relative value of various research activities:

I'd rank research experience in this way:


11. Housekeeping and supply ordering.

10. Helping others with projects, serving as a research assistant or technician.

9. Animal surgery.

8. Pilot work prior to writing a proposal for a testable hypothesis.

7. Responsibility for testing a hypothesis.

6. Funding of your project (not your PI's funding)

5. Poster presentation at a student event

4. Podium presentation at a student event

3. Poster presentation at a regional or national meeting in your specialty (published abstract)

2. Podium presentation at a regional or national meeting in your specialty (published abstract)

1. Authorship in a peer reviewed, national publication.

 

[drizzt3117]

I'm not sure if this is common at other schools, but I got a $1700 grant this semester to do research. I'm presenting a first-authored poster on my research next week at a symposium. Is this somewhat comparable to a publication? Does it matter much that I'm the first author because it's just a poster? Give me some thoughts on how this weighs on my application please!

1) No, it's not as important as a pub.
2) Being first author is nice.
3) it'll help your app as most people don't have research, but isn't as good as a pub.

 

[ThaliaNox]

Help? Yes. Good as an article? No. Wish it did, I had lots of posters/presentations!

 

[hopki099]

Here is LizzyM's input on relative value of various research activities:

So I guess mine covers 5, 6, and 7. Also, my Genetics professor said that often on a resume, just having a paper submitted (under peer review) is about as good as having the paper published. Is this true?

 

[Catalystik]

Also, my Genetics professor said that often on a resume, just having a paper submitted (under peer review) is about as good as having the paper published. Is this true?

No. Nothing is as good as being able to list a citation, though it's close if you've been notified that a paper has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication and will appear in a journal in a given edition.

 

[drizzt3117]

It doesn't count for as much if the paper isn't yet accepted. You can list it on a resume with the title, authors, etc, and at least they can tell that it's been written. I would make sure you put the submission date though, and it should be close to the present date.

My resume has pubs, accepted papers, and after that submitted papers with date.

No. Nothing is as good as being able to list a citation, though it's close if you've been notified that a paper has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication and will appear in a journal in a given edition.

It's considered acceptable to cite accepted papers.

You usually do it like this if the publication is accepted but not online yet:

Duck, D., Mouse, M., Pooh, W., et al "Adventures in the Magic Kingdom" American Journal of Cartoons 2010 (in press)

Like this, if it's in epub but the publication date hasn't been determined yet:

Duck, D., Mouse, M., Pooh, W., et al "Adventures in the Magic Kingdom" American Journal of Cartoons 2010 (e-pub ahead of press)

and obviously once you know the pub date:

Duck, D., Mouse, M., Pooh, W., et al "Adventures in the Magic Kingdom" American Journal of Cartoons 2010 6🙁21) 2194-2196