In terms of "how good it looks on the application," is there a substantial difference between an article that's been accepted for publication vs. a publication that's under review? I already have 2nd/3rd author publications under my belt, but I'm trying to determine whether I should rush to get this first-author publication done + accepted by the time I apply (I'm also about to take the MCAT soon so time is really scarce at the moment).
Publication Accepted vs. Publication Under Review vs. Publication Accepted?
- Thread starter Soulstice
- Start date
Of course there is a difference in publication accepted vs publication under review, but typically if you already have a few pubs, the under review pub wont have as much of an impact (still good though). If you had one pub and one under review (like I do) it helps a bit more (of course it looks better to have more pubs, I'm just saying the impact solely due to the under review paper). If you have no pubs and one under review, it at least shows that you've done enough to have your name on a potential pub even if it hasn't been accepted yet.
bottom line is published paper > under review paper >>>>>>>>> research with no publication
bottom line is published paper > under review paper >>>>>>>>> research with no publication
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 28,681
- Reaction score
- 53,677
paper under review = no paper
Until something is accepted or "in press" it is nothing to write home about.
Until something is accepted or "in press" it is nothing to write home about.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2011
- Messages
- 11,139
- Reaction score
- 163
A paper under review is nothing. You might be able to work it in to your application as a part of your research entry, but it's not worth its own slot.
An accepted paper is, for application purposes, the same as a published paper. Both earn their own slot in the work/activities section
An accepted paper is, for application purposes, the same as a published paper. Both earn their own slot in the work/activities section
