Publications - Acknowledgments and Submitted Manuscripts - What to do?

[alk27]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi All,

So I am almost done with my application. But I am stuck (like always).

I have a manuscript that just got submitted and is undergoing the acceptance - rejection process. It is most likely going to be accepted by a well known national journal - should I put this as its own extracurricular and if so how should I list it (submitted, under review, future, etc?)?

Also, I have an acknowledgment on a very good study - should I include this too?

My problem also lies here - I have 14 slots filled up. So I only have 1 more. I either have a "publication" field to put both or an "other" field to put both. Or I have to leave out one - because I have no room to add it in my research blurb (I work on a lot of different studies so my research EC is 75 characters to allotted amount), so it would need to be its own category.

Any insight is appreciated.

 

[alk27]

I forgot to add.... the submitted publication was also a poster I did ... and in that blurb I said I also worked on the manuscript which has been submitted in the bla bla bla journal...... is that enough..... or would it be better to do another field of pending publications and add that and a note about the acknowledgement.

 

[jcm14]

I was acknowledged on two pretty serious papers and did not include them on my application. I personally don't think it is terribly impressive to be acknowledged, but others may feel differently.

For one where I was an author and in a similar situation, I put, "Title" Authors. Submitted to X Journal.
You could also put In revision.

But I would definitely use the last slot for the one where you are actually an author. You can send an update if and when the paper is accepted.

 

[alk27]

So do you think I should have that last category as "other" or "publications" ..... would it be a detriment to list the acknowledgment in "publications pending" or should I try to squeeze it in research without citing it.

 

[austinap]

Title it something like "scientific publications and presentations", then you can throw your poster in there as well. I'd use a standard citation format, preferably one including the title:

Author1, Author2, ..., PI, (2010), Title goes here. under review

 

[Catalystik]

Do not use the Publication designation for an article that is not yet accepted. Save that for an update letter.

If you were acknowledged in a published article and you made a meaningful contribution to the study (in which case why weren't you a coauthor?), which you are fully able to explain in the narrative without embarrassment, then you could cite it after the Research description. Nonsignificant folks are acknowled also, like the typist, the person cleaning out the rat cages, and the guy who washed the glassware: if that's what you did, then do not list it.

It's OK to have an empty slot.

 

[austinap]

Do not use the Publication designation for an article that is not yet accepted. Save that for an update letter.

If you were acknowledged in a published article and you made a meaningful contribution to the study (in which case why weren't you a coauthor?), which you are fully able to explain in the narrative without embarrassment, then you could cite it after the Research description. Nonsignificant folks are acknowled also, like the typist, the person cleaning out the rat cages, and the guy who washed the glassware: if that's what you did, then do not list it.

It's OK to have an empty slot.

I agree he should leave out any "acknowledgments" as they're all but meaningless, but I don't think he should have to wait to write the article down if it's been submitted for review, so long as he's clear on that status. It can take months to even years to get a paper accepted, and people understand that.

 

[ShinyDome19]

I agree he should leave out any "acknowledgments" as they're all but meaningless, but I don't think he should have to wait to write the article down if it's been submitted for review, so long as he's clear on that status. It can take months to even years to get a paper accepted, and people understand that.

I am with Austin on this one. If you've submitted a paper, that is an accomplishment in itself. However, depending on what the rest of your application looks like, saving that for an update letter should you get waitlisted or something may be a good "ace in the hole"

 

[pelliper]

cite these all in the research description, cut out some fluff if you need more space. unless your publication was accepted i wouldnt put it under its own category

 

[austinap]

cite these all in the research description, cut out some fluff if you need more space. unless your publication was accepted i wouldnt put it under its own category

Even if (when) it gets accepted, I'd still lump all of my scientific publications / presentations into a single category. Unless you have enough publications to fill up a section on its own, keep it together. It doesn't take much space to give the citation, and it lets you use the rest of the space to give the adcom more information about yourself.

 

[alk27]

I did contribute a lot in the collection of data as far as the paper I got an acknowledgment for. However, I did not have any part in the actual writing of the manuscript so I wasn't listed as a co-author on it.

And, I don't have any room in my research to cite and list the acknowledgment or the pending publication.

I did mention the publication in the poster section - because it was the data presented in the poster. I know they don't like when you are redundant ... but the publication pending has a new title (but I am still second author on it as in the poster).

Soooo with that being said..... should I do an other category with both of these listed or leave it how I have it (in the poster section and no acknowledgment)?

 

[Catalystik]

should I do an other category with both of these listed or leave it how I have it (in the poster section and no acknowledgment)?

Leave it as you have it.

 

[NickNaylor]

I wouldn't include acknowledgments. To me they seem like space fillers since listing a lab/research EC will get the point across that you did work on projects (which is all the acknowledgment says).

 

[JJMrK]

You should have a section talking about the research that resulted in the acknowledgment. Don't specifically mention that you were acknowledged in the paper, IMO.

Under the section where you talk about the research you did that resulted in the manuscript, I would note that you have an article under review.