- Joined
- Dec 23, 2011
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 4
On the publications section are you supposed to list only journal articles published or those submitted as well?
published versus submitted
- Thread starter peroxidase
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2011
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 22
Published or "in press" only. Most top journals have high (>85%) rejection rates so a "submitted" paper is by no means a sure thing.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 91
I definitely had some 'submitted' on there. I know plenty of other people who did the same. Lots of people discover Ophtho late in third year and there is simply not enough time to get something published, but you want to show your commitment to the field still. So in my opinion, 'submitted' is better than a blank page.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Messages
- 908
- Reaction score
- 9
My ophtho advisor said to put both published and submitted. You just have to indicate the non-published one as submitted.
As a side note, does anyone know what the average number of pubs is for an applicant? I currently only have 1 pub as first author. I'm working on two more but they are unlikely to be submitted in time for the application. I would like to match at a decent program, but I feel like my research experience is below average. All the recently graduated fourth years at my school who matched had at least 4 pubs...so I don't know if this is the norm.
As a side note, does anyone know what the average number of pubs is for an applicant? I currently only have 1 pub as first author. I'm working on two more but they are unlikely to be submitted in time for the application. I would like to match at a decent program, but I feel like my research experience is below average. All the recently graduated fourth years at my school who matched had at least 4 pubs...so I don't know if this is the norm.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2011
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 22
I disagree. If your research is important enough to be considered for publication then its worth a description in your application. That is more impressive to someone reading 10-20 apps a day. You will not be denied a position at most programs because you don't publish, but at the more research heavy programs it may hurt you. If you didn't because you decided late then describe your work in your application, taking into account the limitations of CAS.
BTW, I know plenty of residents who published in other fields and in college before deciding on ophtho and I know plenty of folks who published case series and retrospective chart reviews as late as 3rd year. That all should be included even if from a different field or in college. There will be different opinions on this, but the goal of research is to add new information to the published literature. Put it in that context in your application and in your interview and be ready to describe your research in depth and you will do fine. Good luck
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,094
- Reaction score
- 4
Are you guys counting pubs as full peer reviewed articles only or are you including abstracts as well?
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2011
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 22
Manuscripts are a lot harder to publish then abstracts so for SFmatch I think abstracts are good to include, especially 1st authored work. They are technically peer-reviewed. For example, I heard from a reliable source the ARVO abstract rejection rate is 15-20%.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2011
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 22
IMO its quality over quantity. One pub in a top journal trumps 10 in journals with no name recognition. I don't know what the average # of pubs for applicants is, but its not very high. Remember that it is REALLY hard to publish as a med student. Interviewers know this.
Only a few programs will decide on one applicant over another based on their research CV. MD,Ph.Ds obviously have an advantage in this context, but a well balanced application is most important. If you have already published as a med student that's an achievement and you should describe the details of your work in your application and during your interview.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 91
So it looks like there's some conflicting advice here. The advice I received was that quality is of course better than quantity, but if you don't have much research then it's okay to put things on that page of the app with items you're at least working on or have submitted in order to show that you are dedicated to pursuing Ophthalmology. At that point you're not trying to use the research to show that you've increased the scope or depth of medical knowledge. You're just trying to prove that you have more than a fleeting interest in Ophthalmology and have some academic interest beyond making a good salary and having a reasonable lifestyle. Plus, you need something to talk about during interviews and invariably interviewers will attempt to ask you something from the research part of the application. If there's just one thing there it might get awkward. When I asked my program director where I went to medical school I was told to put my submitted but unpublished works on my app and not that they were in submission - but my school was not a research powerhouse. In my experience during interviews most people were like me; fairly uninterested in pursuing research long term, and without much research on their resume. For us common folks, I think it's okay to put submitted works on there even if by doing so it looks bad to people at Wills/Wilmer/Bascom because we probably weren't going there anyway. I think if you really are looking to go to those places then you probably have enough published works that you aren't asking this question anyway.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2011
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 22
One of the few nice things about the SF match app is it allows a great deal of flexibility. There is no one right or wrong way to compose your application and its not surprising there are a number of different opinions on how best to present yourself and your accomplishments.
There are also numerous ways to show commitment to the field other than research. I know plenty of applicants who shined in volunteer service, jump-started community initiates, or were the president of their respective ophtho interest group in medical school and they all matched at top programs without heavy research. Lets face it, most applicants will not pursue a full-time career in research and I think most PDs know this, so there is no use trying to make an application look like a research CV if that's not your final interest. Some top programs do seek applicants who have proven research interests, so if that's where you want to end up it may be harder.
I think everyone would agree you should be honest and forthright in your application and tailor it to your strengths. Don't worry about what someone else has on their application. Every application has strengths and every application has weaknesses. If you focus on your strengths then you will likely match at a solid program.
There are also numerous ways to show commitment to the field other than research. I know plenty of applicants who shined in volunteer service, jump-started community initiates, or were the president of their respective ophtho interest group in medical school and they all matched at top programs without heavy research. Lets face it, most applicants will not pursue a full-time career in research and I think most PDs know this, so there is no use trying to make an application look like a research CV if that's not your final interest. Some top programs do seek applicants who have proven research interests, so if that's where you want to end up it may be harder.
I think everyone would agree you should be honest and forthright in your application and tailor it to your strengths. Don't worry about what someone else has on their application. Every application has strengths and every application has weaknesses. If you focus on your strengths then you will likely match at a solid program.
