research abstracts

[singularity2012]

---

Members do not see this ad.

When discussing research, especially in the context of publications, I've seen numerous premeds on here claim that they have "X number of abstracts."

What exactly does this mean? What is the significance of writing an abstract? Are they referring to the abstract in a research article that's been published? And if so, why wouldn't that person just be included as a co-author for that paper as a whole? Can abstracts (or summaries) just be published all by themselves?

Basically, I am really confused about how an abstract would ever be an accomplishment in and of itself. Shouldn't the larger project in which the abstract is involved (i.e. publication, poster presentation, etc.) be mentioned instead?

 

[mmmcdowe]

When discussing research, especially in the context of publications, I've seen numerous premeds on here claim that they have "X number of abstracts."

What exactly does this mean? What is the significance of writing an abstract? Are they referring to the abstract in a research article that's been published? And if so, why wouldn't that person just be included as a co-author for that paper as a whole? Can abstracts (or summaries) just be published all by themselves?

Basically, I am really confused about how an abstract would ever be an accomplishment in and of itself. Shouldn't the larger project in which the abstract is involved (i.e. publication, poster presentation, etc.) be mentioned instead?

Yes, abstracts are often published or submitted to research conferences.

 

[singularity2012]

When they are published in journals, what purpose do they serve if they are not accompanied by the graphs, tables, and other data characteristic of a full research article?

 

[parhumn]

When they are published in journals, what purpose do they serve if they are not accompanied by the graphs, tables, and other data characteristic of a full research article?

i think they are talking about when they aren't published in journals. for instance, if you go to a conference, they usually ask for an abstract to put in the conference booklet...they don't want everything, but rather a small abstract. and because it is published in a booklet, it counts as a published abstract

 

[mmmcdowe]

When they are published in journals, what purpose do they serve if they are not accompanied by the graphs, tables, and other data characteristic of a full research article?

Nature publications often tend to be essentially an extended abstract. That's just their preference.

 

[mmmcdowe]

i think they are talking about when they aren't published in journals. for instance, if you go to a conference, they usually ask for an abstract to put in the conference booklet...they don't want everything, but rather a small abstract. and because it is published in a booklet, it counts as a published abstract

Well dang, if I had known that I'd have three! I didn't know that was considered publishing an abstract too.

 

[mmmcdowe]

Here's some examples of abstracts published in major journals. When journals do this, they sacrifice detail for a greater range of research presented. Interested parties can then contact the professor in question, or read full publications that were published in different journals.

http://www.thorne.com/media/recent1-1.pdf

 

[exoslimjim]

Nature publications often tend to be essentially an extended abstract. That's just their preference.

i'm very confident you are wrong. an abstract is basically a poster submission or presentation, and for some conferences are published in their booklet or in their supplementary of a peer review journal like aacr. however, an abstract is not usually peer review, and are actually not counted or seen as a research publication, and abstracts are not indexed (SCI). This means that you can't cite it! look at the citable material guidelines in nearly all journals... they don't allow abstracts or presentations.

Science and Nature are fairly unique because they rarely publish full articles, but publish reports and letters which are limited in length and figures. but if you take a close look they come with extensive supplementary. in either case reports and letters are far from abstracts. Even communications come with a real abstract.

 

[mmmcdowe]

i'm very confident you are wrong. an abstract is basically a poster submission or presentation, and for some conferences are published in their booklet or in their supplementary of a peer review journal like aacr. however, an abstract is not usually peer review, and are actually not counted or seen as a research publication, and abstracts are not indexed (SCI). This means that you can't cite it! look at the citable material guidelines in nearly all journals... they don't allow abstracts or presentations.

Science and Nature are fairly unique because they rarely publish full articles, but publish reports and letters which are limited in length and figures. but if you take a close look they come with extensive supplementary. in either case reports and letters are far from abstracts. Even communications come with a real abstract.

Which is why I called them essentially an extended abstract. I don't know about the citing thing or the indexing. The links that I have looked at to check out abstracts SEEM citable. I mean, they are in journals after all.

 

[orrghead16]

i'm very confident you are wrong. an abstract is basically a poster submission or presentation, and for some conferences are published in their booklet or in their supplementary of a peer review journal like aacr. however, an abstract is not usually peer review, and are actually not counted or seen as a research publication, and abstracts are not indexed (SCI). This means that you can't cite it! look at the citable material guidelines in nearly all journals... they don't allow abstracts or presentations.

Science and Nature are fairly unique because they rarely publish full articles, but publish reports and letters which are limited in length and figures. but if you take a close look they come with extensive supplementary. in either case reports and letters are far from abstracts. Even communications come with a real abstract.

110% Agree on this. Nature and Science are very different in that they are read by a very wide scope of readers. As such, and moreover because of their prestige, every article is written to be as concise and effective as possible. Very literally, most papers in the above are the equality of many papers to even slightly lower journals. We are working through a submission to one as we speak, and we could easily divide (and will if we get the boot) into >3 full length papers/articles. The amount of data, proof, and novelty in most of these papers is just astounding, and it REALLY makes you wonder why you went through all this extra data, condensing, & times to get into N or S.

Whoever says that a Nature or Science paper is just a glorified abstract doesn't know wtf they are talking about. Sure, they are written on the bare bones needed to get the

Generally abstracts= posters & talks, these include conferences, etc. Generally everything less than true peer-review; pubs= NCBI journals.

 

[orrghead16]

i think they are talking about when they aren't published in journals. for instance, if you go to a conference, they usually ask for an abstract to put in the conference booklet...they don't want everything, but rather a small abstract. and because it is published in a booklet, it counts as a published abstract

Conference proceedings are not publications, nor published abstracts. Not too much gray area on this.

 

[JJMrK]

Yeah, I wouldn't list an abstract in a conference booklet as something that's been published.

 

[orrghead16]

Yeah, I wouldn't list an abstract in a conference booklet as something that's been published.

It is an abstract, though. It is something you can put on your CV and AMCAS. It is meaningful. Its just not a publication.

Most pre-meds have a much wider-than-reality belief on what publications are. It sure is fun conversation on SDN, though.

 

[takhara]

Today, I actually submitted a few abstracts for a major orthopaedic conference. I asked a resident I work with the same question being posed in this thread in regard to how it stacks up with a "full" publication. He said that if an abstract is accepted to a big-time meeting for a poster or podium presentation, that is actually almost comparable to a full publication. These meetings are very selective in which abstracts they choose to be presented. If it is on your CV, it also implies that you actually helped make a poster or presentation that will be shown at the meeting, which makes it more involved than simply writing a one-page abstract. It is also assumes that you spent months doing research to get the data included in the abstract (which will probably lead to a full publication). I'm sure med schools know that these abstracts represent larger research efforts, so I think they would look good on an application.

 

[iPodtosis]

Where would this "unpublished" abstract be entered in TMDSAS or AMCAS?
Thanks in advance

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Today, I actually submitted a few abstracts for a major orthopaedic conference. I asked a resident I work with the same question being posed in this thread in regard to how it stacks up with a "full" publication. He said that if an abstract is accepted to a big-time meeting for a poster or podium presentation, that is actually almost comparable to a full publication. These meetings are very selective in which abstracts they choose to be presented. If it is on your CV, it also implies that you actually helped make a poster or presentation that will be shown at the meeting, which makes it more involved than simply writing a one-page abstract. It is also assumes that you spent months doing research to get the data included in the abstract (which will probably lead to a full publication). I'm sure med schools know that these abstracts represent larger research efforts, so I think they would look good on an application.

I would tend to disagree with that. Abstracts aren't truly peer reviewed and just how much information is contained in those 200 or so words doesn't really allow for real scrutiny even when accepted to a "big time" conference. Also most conferences aren't very selective in the abstracts they accept, and I doubt the random adcom member is familiar with the few that are. Abstracts do not equal peer reviewed publication and are certainly not almost comparable.

 

[SireSpanky]

I think many of you are missing the benefits of a conference/abstract. For example, I recently presented a poster/submitted an abstract for the ISMRM [arguable one of the top three annual seminars for magnetic resonance]. Was the data I submitted critically reviewed? No. While there was some level of scrutiny [I think around 7500 submitted and about 5-6k accepted], there undoubtedly was tons of mistakes being presented by groups present: errors in synthesis or imaging sequences or controls or whatever.

But the abstract, while not as academically stringent as the peer reviewed journals, suggests that you can actually present your work to an audience. I mean, let's be honest, how many people know those scientists that are absolutely brilliant, but couldn't give a stranger on the street directions to the library. Yes, I recognize simply giving a talk or presenting a poster doesn't mean that you necessarily did it well, but it does show an ability to interact outside the labratory and/or word processor.

My $.02.

 

[BrainBuff]

Facts:

1.- Important Conferences and Academic Meetings will usually have a "Call for Abstracts". What this means is that the scientific community (from clinicians to bench researchers) will have the opportunity to present their work in scheduled sessions - usually called Scientific Program. This is in addition to other Lectures or presentations by guest/important Speakers .

2.- Abstracts are peer reviewed. They are selected by the Scientific Committee and Editorial Board of the Conference -Journal

3.- Abstracts are published as part of the conference. Most academic conferences are given by Associations which publish their own journals. Selected abstracts may be presented as part of an Edition (usually a Supplement ) which is published annually. Depending on the Association, you will be invited to submit the complete Manuscript for publication in the specific journal.

4.- The Journal Supplement for the specific year is Indexed and appears in PubMed, therefore it is definitely a publication.

5.- The "Call for Abstracts" usually has some specific requirements. Lately , it is standard for the Abstract not to have been previously published as a Manuscript in any Journal.

Examples: Cephalalgia, is one of the most important headache journals and is published on behalf of the International Headache Society. There is an upcoming meeting of the IHS and this is the way it goes....
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]
.
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The online abstract submission site is open: .[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]www.call4abstracts.com/ahs/ahs09d1.
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The late breaking abstract submission site opens July 1, 2009 and closes August 1, 2009. Notifications will be sent out for late breaking abstracts on August 15, 2009. .
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]All accepted platform and poster abstracts will be published in Cephalalgia, the Journal of the International Headache Society.
.

The same applies for Spine, the Journal of the North American Spine Surgeons Society; Headache, the Journal of the American Headache Society; Neurology, the Journal of the American Academy of Neurology, etc, etc, etc........

In case you guys do not know these are the most prestigious organizations in their field. The same goes for all the other less important specialties, like cardiology, derm, pediatrics, etc.... 🙂

Sorry for the long post, but I had to address the gross misinformation here..

 

[Pinkertinkle]

You call the 5 minute read through of a two to three hundred word abstract "peer review"? I call it checking to make sure the abstract is on topic and not grossly erroneous. How much can you garner from a two hundred word abstract with two sentences on method and three sentences on results? I rarely rarely see abstracts get rejected and if they do it is usually due to off topic rather than content. Just because this ends up in some index journal on pubmed does not make it more legitimate.

This is very far from what I consider a peer reviewed publication when I am looking at applications, and would consider it misrepresentation.

Facts:

1.- Important Conferences and Academic Meetings will usually have a "Call for Abstracts". What this means is that the scientific community (from clinicians to bench researchers) will have the opportunity to present their work in scheduled sessions - usually called Scientific Program. This is in addition to other Lectures or presentations by guest/important Speakers .

2.- Abstracts are peer reviewed. They are selected by the Scientific Committee and Editorial Board of the Conference -Journal

3.- Abstracts are published as part of the conference. Most academic conferences are given by Associations which publish their own journals. Selected abstracts may be presented as part of an Edition (usually a Supplement ) which is published annually. Depending on the Association, you will be invited to submit the complete Manuscript for publication in the specific journal.

4.- The Journal Supplement for the specific year is Indexed and appears in PubMed, therefore it is definitely a publication.

5.- The "Call for Abstracts" usually has some specific requirements. Lately , it is standard for the Abstract not to have been previously published as a Manuscript in any Journal.

Examples: Cephalalgia, is one of the most important headache journals and is published on behalf of the International Headache Society. There is an upcoming meeting of the IHS and this is the way it goes....
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]
.
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The online abstract submission site is open: .[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]www.call4abstracts.com/ahs/ahs09d1.
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The late breaking abstract submission site opens July 1, 2009 and closes August 1, 2009. Notifications will be sent out for late breaking abstracts on August 15, 2009. .
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]All accepted platform and poster abstracts will be published in Cephalalgia, the Journal of the International Headache Society.
.

The same applies for Spine, the Journal of the North American Spine Surgeons Society; Headache, the Journal of the American Headache Society; Neurology, the Journal of the American Academy of Neurology, etc, etc, etc........

In case you guys do not know these are the most prestigious organizations in their field. The same goes for all the other less important specialties, like cardiology, derm, pediatrics, etc.... 🙂

Sorry for the long post, but I had to address the gross misinformation here..

 

[SireSpanky]

2.- Abstracts are peer reviewed. They are selected by the Scientific Committee and Editorial Board of the Conference -Journal

Kinda. Editor review is pretty much the absolute weakest form of peer review. I cannot think of any reputable journals that do not use a referee review system to ensure peer review among experts specific to the research. The editor and even his board only have so much expertise, and I guarantee you that much of the work presented at conferences are beyond it.

3.- Abstracts are published as part of the conference. Most academic conferences are given by Associations which publish their own journals. Selected abstracts may be presented as part of an Edition (usually a Supplement ) which is published annually. Depending on the Association, you will be invited to submit the complete Manuscript for publication in the specific journal.

4.- The Journal Supplement for the specific year is Indexed and appears in PubMed, therefore it is definitely a publication.

Published =/= publication. I mean, using a semantics argument, fine, point to you. However, show me a CV that lists abstracts with the publications and not with presentations - they are few and far between. I think you would be very, very hard pressed to find any respected researcher who would claim an abstract to a conference as a scholarly publication.

Now I'm up to 4 cents!

 

[BrainBuff]

Pinkertinkle,

Honestly, what you call it could not be anymore irrelevant. It is reviewed by peers and the standards are kept because it is published in the same journal which ispeer reviewed

 

[BrainBuff]

Sirespanky,
I agree with your last post. But do not forget that the purpose of an abstract is to introduce the work to the scientific community at the conference in question. Most people go on to write the full manuscript for publication. If it gets rejected from one journal, then you just keep trying others.

Anyway, the abstract is usually not what is presented at the conference but the complete work which will likely be published later. (It takes 5 minutes to present an abstract and most of these meetings you have 20 -30 min presentations.

 

[BrainBuff]

And by the way, whoever said that abstracts never get rejected has no idea what he or she is talking about. That point is not even worth arguing.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Pinkertinkle,

Honestly, what you call it could not be anymore irrelevant. It is reviewed by peers and the standards are kept because it is published in the same journal which ispeer reviewed

Disagree, but not gonna waste my time trying to convince you.

 

[orrghead16]

Today, I actually submitted a few abstracts for a major orthopaedic conference. I asked a resident I work with the same question being posed in this thread in regard to how it stacks up with a "full" publication. He said that if an abstract is accepted to a big-time meeting for a poster or podium presentation, that is actually almost comparable to a full publication. These meetings are very selective in which abstracts they choose to be presented. If it is on your CV, it also implies that you actually helped make a poster or presentation that will be shown at the meeting, which makes it more involved than simply writing a one-page abstract. It is also assumes that you spent months doing research to get the data included in the abstract (which will probably lead to a full publication). I'm sure med schools know that these abstracts represent larger research efforts, so I think they would look good on an application.

This is very right. There are a lot of conferences that are really big-time. And to be in them as an undergrad is almost unheard of. People and adcoms will recognize these. See: Gordon, NIH-core conferences. People will recognize some of these > that publications. But that does not make it a publication.

 

[SireSpanky]

Most people go on to write the full manuscript for publication. If it gets rejected from one journal, then you just keep trying others.

So during the interim, you should just attend as many conferences as possible, and you can get a dozen publications off the same work?! Brilliant!🙄 Your argument is self-defeating. One of the qualifications of nearly all journals for publication is that the work isn't already published. If your abstract is a true publication of your work, then no one could publish the "full manuscript" as the research has already been presented in the literature. On the contrary, abstracts are separate from publications (even when you do a literature search for papers, abstracts will specifically be designated as such in the actual JOURNAL TITLE).

 

[orrghead16]

Facts:

1.- Important Conferences and Academic Meetings will usually have a "Call for Abstracts". What this means is that the scientific community (from clinicians to bench researchers) will have the opportunity to present their work in scheduled sessions - usually called Scientific Program. This is in addition to other Lectures or presentations by guest/important Speakers .

2.- Abstracts are peer reviewed. They are selected by the Scientific Committee and Editorial Board of the Conference -Journal

3.- Abstracts are published as part of the conference. Most academic conferences are given by Associations which publish their own journals. Selected abstracts may be presented as part of an Edition (usually a Supplement ) which is published annually. Depending on the Association, you will be invited to submit the complete Manuscript for publication in the specific journal.

4.- The Journal Supplement for the specific year is Indexed and appears in PubMed, therefore it is definitely a publication.

5.- The "Call for Abstracts" usually has some specific requirements. Lately , it is standard for the Abstract not to have been previously published as a Manuscript in any Journal.

Examples: Cephalalgia, is one of the most important headache journals and is published on behalf of the International Headache Society. There is an upcoming meeting of the IHS and this is the way it goes....
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]
.
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The online abstract submission site is open: .[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]www.call4abstracts.com/ahs/ahs09d1.
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The late breaking abstract submission site opens July 1, 2009 and closes August 1, 2009. Notifications will be sent out for late breaking abstracts on August 15, 2009. .
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]All accepted platform and poster abstracts will be published in Cephalalgia, the Journal of the International Headache Society. .[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]
.

The same applies for Spine, the Journal of the North American Spine Surgeons Society; Headache, the Journal of the American Headache Society; Neurology, the Journal of the American Academy of Neurology, etc, etc, etc........

In case you guys do not know these are the most prestigious organizations in their field. The same goes for all the other less important specialties, like cardiology, derm, pediatrics, etc.... 🙂

Sorry for the long post, but I had to address the gross misinformation here..

I can dig most of this except 2. That couldn't be any farther from a fact.

Have you been through the peer review process? There is a huge difference between peer review and peer-mediated approval. Peer review is a very active process involving criticism and response. I have done quite a few conferences and gone through abstract-acceptance a decent number of times, including to some of the most competitive conferences. Never once have I received peer-review feedback for a conference.

If we are going by your standards for peer review, lets start counting term papers as pubs too. I guarantee those see more "peer review" than most abstracts accepted to conferences. My CV just jumped to 20 pubs!

Go find me a PI that has conference abstracts listed under publications on their CV and we will talk. Good luck. You have thoroughly demonstrated what I mentioned earlier about premeds vastly exaggerating what a publication actually is.

 

[JJMrK]

Where would this "unpublished" abstract be entered in TMDSAS or AMCAS?
Thanks in advance

This is the real question that's actually applicable to many of us.

IMO: list them with presentations, not publications.

 

[0Complications]

This is the real question that's actually applicable to many of us.

IMO: list them with presentations, not publications.

So, do you just call them presentations or do you call them abstracts?

Or do you call it and abstract AND a presentation? I would feel it's somewhat misleading if you list them as both abstracts and presentations, because the abstract implies you presented it (at least under presentations) and the presentation implies you submitted an abstract.

Any clarification on this would be much appreciated. Thanks!

 

[orrghead16]

So, do you just call them presentations or do you call them abstracts?

Or do you call it and abstract AND a presentation? I would feel it's somewhat misleading if you list them as both abstracts and presentations, because the abstract implies you presented it (at least under presentations) and the presentation implies you submitted an abstract.

Any clarification on this would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Abstract/presentation are generally interchangeable for 90% of the times. 'Abstracts' are usually a heading for mostly posters and talks, with maybe a few random things (like journal abstracts, proceedings that weren't presented, etc.).

If it was a presentation, list it as such; always. Don't list it twice. You are perfectly correct that presentation implies abstract. Though this is not necessarily vice versa, but usually is. DON'T, please, list presentations and the like as publications, contrary to some 'advice' in this thread. Adcoms will look at you like a fool and will wonder why you are listing BS publications.

When in doubt, always list it as where you would list it on a professional (scientist's/physician's) CV. Don't go off into undergrad fairytale land and decide you get to make up a special CV just for AMCAS bragging rights.

 

[devilpup]

Disagree, but not gonna waste my time trying to convince you.

I also disagree with that poster.
As someone who has published in a peer reviewed journal, I can tell you that the process of being published can take along time and usually requires rewriting manuscripts. When listing your accomplished work in a CV, it is best to divide the CV into two categories - "Publications (peer reviewed)" and "Abstracts".

Attributing an abstract, whether published by a conference booklet or not, as a peer reviewed publication is misleading. Just Google a CV from an accomplished academic physician and one will see the clear distinction.

Perhaps a better response can be given if the question was posted in the 'Student Research and Publishing forum'

 

[0Complications]

Abstract/presentation are generally interchangeable for 90% of the times. 'Abstracts' are usually a heading for mostly posters and talks, with maybe a few random things (like journal abstracts, proceedings that weren't presented, etc.).

If it was a presentation, list it as such; always. Don't list it twice. You are perfectly correct that presentation implies abstract. Though this is not necessarily vice versa, but usually is. DON'T, please, list presentations and the like as publications, contrary to some 'advice' in this thread. Adcoms will look at you like a fool and will wonder why you are listing BS publications.

When in doubt, always list it as where you would list it on a professional (scientist's/physician's) CV. Don't go off into undergrad fairytale land and decide you get to make up a special CV just for AMCAS bragging rights.

Thanks, man. I'm going to list them as presentations on AMCAS (That's how they are listed on my CV as well).

Also, if you presented the same work at 2 conferences would you list it for each conference? I have a couple that I presented at regional conferences and undergraduate conferences (figured I might as well, since I already had the presentations ready).

Another quick question. Does it look bad to have a number of presentations and no publications?

I know this sounds bad, but I've had ~8 presentations, the latest last week at an NIH conference in St. Louis, but I have zero publications. I am working on a publication and will hopefully have a couple coming out of our research in the next year, but they definitely won't be in time for the application cycle. Does this look bad?

 

[Red Leader]

Nature publications often tend to be essentially an extended abstract. That's just their preference.

Alright everyone ignore this guy whenever he talks about research from now on lol.

I guarantee you cannot find someone who publishes a paper in Nature and refers to it as a lowly ABSTRACT. HAHAHAHAHAHA

Abstract is NOT a publication.

Conference proceedings = NOT publication. List them as such aka "conference proceedings" to DISTINGUISH between REAL publications (i.e. journals) and WANNABE-CV FILLER (i.e. conf proceedings/abstracts).

BrainBuff: Peer-reviewed. Those words. I don't think it means what you think it means.

BrainBuff my advice to you is to stop lying to yourself. Orgohead is right, abstract peer review is pretty much like little league. If you can come up with some topic related to the conference and write in coherent english it will probably be accepted.

Also, conference proceedings are not the same as the journals you speak about. They are simply conference proceedings. For example, ACS meetings may have their own abstracts in a book summarizing the posters/talks that were given, but it does not mean you publishing in JACS or anything close to that.

More than this though is impact factor. Please tell me the impact factors of these proceedings you consider to be journals...lol probably doesn't exist or is close to ZERO. Know why? Because nobody cites abstracts.

I'm also curious to how an abstract can be "peer-reviewed" since there really is not much to review in terms of data to backup what you wrote.

 

[orrghead16]

Also, if you presented the same work at 2 conferences would you list it for each conference? I have a couple that I presented at regional conferences and undergraduate conferences (figured I might as well, since I already had the presentations ready).

Of course, especially at this level. Look at grad students: they are often going to have one the same project over 4+ years, and you better believe that they are going to be presenting similar, if not the same stuff. This is why it is always important to change the title slightly & abstract every time you are applying for another conference. The entire aim of changing the title, etc. is so that it looks better on your CV in the end. A lot of times, conferences can only be a few months apart. That is barely enough time to make another slide, let alone get another topic to talk about.

Another quick question. Does it look bad to have a number of presentations and no publications?

No. The amount of abstracts I have on my CV makes my tiny pub list look pansy, too. This is just another example of the variation you get with different projects & variation/luck in publications. Some are going to be short, publish out of thin air, talk about it once maybe. Others, like graduate student thesis, long term projects, etc. Are going to be developing over time. I.e. a lot of time to talk about different aspects of the project before it accumulates into a publication. This is exactly my case, too.

I know this sounds bad, but I've had ~8 presentations, the latest last week at an NIH conference in St. Louis, but I have zero publications. I am working on a publication and will hopefully have a couple coming out of our research in the next year, but they definitely won't be in time for the application cycle. Does this look bad?

If anyone says 8 presentations (regardless of anything else) is a bad thing, they need to get layed. This is the case for most young grad students that have encouraging PIs, as well as undergrads & some pre-meds.

 

[orrghead16]

More than this though is impact factor. Please tell me the impact factors of these proceedings you consider to be journals...lol probably doesn't exist or is close to ZERO. Know why? Because nobody cites abstracts.

He will now try to redefine impact factor as well. Such as, 'how much overall mental impact did the abstract have on the reader,' and not a citation measurement. This is very similar to "peer review" now means looked over by a friend. 🙄

 

[0Complications]

Of course, especially at this level. Look at grad students: they are often going to have one the same project over 4+ years, and you better believe that they are going to be presenting similar, if not the same stuff. This is why it is always important to change the title slightly & abstract every time you are applying for another conference. The entire aim of changing the title, etc. is so that it looks better on your CV in the end. A lot of times, conferences can only be a few months apart. That is barely enough time to make another slide, let alone get another topic to talk about.



No. The amount of abstracts I have on my CV makes my tiny pub list look pansy, too. This is just another example of the variation you get with different projects & variation/luck in publications. Some are going to be short, publish out of thin air, talk about it once maybe. Others, like graduate student thesis, long term projects, etc. Are going to be developing over time. I.e. a lot of time to talk about different aspects of the project before it accumulates into a publication. This is exactly my case, too.



If anyone says 8 presentations (regardless of anything else) is a bad thing, they need to get layed. This is the case for most young grad students that have encouraging PIs, as well as undergrads & some pre-meds.

Thanks for the thorough reply! I was starting to get a little self-conscious about the whole presentation bit. I showed a fellow student my CV the other day and she looked at it and asked, "No publications?" with an incredulous look on her face (or maybe I just imagined it🙂). Anyway, it started to get me worried. But your post has alleviated a lot of that anxiety.

 

[Red Leader]

He will now try to redefine impact factor as well. Such as, 'how much overall mental impact did the abstract have on the reader,' and not a citation measurement. This is very similar to "peer review" now means looked over by a friend. 🙄

Yeah I have some articles my imaginary friends peer reviewed for me. I'm gonna bulk up my CV to 10 pages now!

 

[Red Leader]

Responses in bold:

Also, if you presented the same work at 2 conferences would you list it for each conference? I have a couple that I presented at regional conferences and undergraduate conferences (figured I might as well, since I already had the presentations ready).

Yes, milk milk milk milk it for all its worth lol...everyone does it. Change a little bit...add another tiny piece of data...new presentation woohoo!

Another quick question. Does it look bad to have a number of presentations and no publications?

At our level nobody expects you to have pubs really...8 presentations is solid. Probably places you in top 90-95% of undergrad researchers IMO just compared to what I've seen at my school.

I know this sounds bad, but I've had ~8 presentations, the latest last week at an NIH conference in St. Louis, but I have zero publications. I am working on a publication and will hopefully have a couple coming out of our research in the next year, but they definitely won't be in time for the application cycle. Does this look bad?

 

[0Complications]

Responses in bold:

👍 Thanks for the info.

 

[exoslimjim]

there is a big difference between editorial review and peer review.

 

[Brett Snodgrass]

However, show me a CV that lists abstracts with the publications and not with presentations - they are few and far between. I think you would be very, very hard pressed to find any respected researcher who would claim an abstract to a conference as a scholarly publication.

Now I'm up to 4 cents!

Facts:

1.- Important Conferences and Academic Meetings will usually have a "Call for Abstracts". What this means is that the scientific community (from clinicians to bench researchers) will have the opportunity to present their work in scheduled sessions - usually called Scientific Program. This is in addition to other Lectures or presentations by guest/important Speakers .

2.- Abstracts are peer reviewed. They are selected by the Scientific Committee and Editorial Board of the Conference -Journal

3.- Abstracts are published as part of the conference. Most academic conferences are given by Associations which publish their own journals. Selected abstracts may be presented as part of an Edition (usually a Supplement ) which is published annually. Depending on the Association, you will be invited to submit the complete Manuscript for publication in the specific journal.

4.- The Journal Supplement for the specific year is Indexed and appears in PubMed, therefore it is definitely a publication.

Would it be correct to say that some abstracts are peer-reviewed research, whereas others are limited to pamphlets?

Here is the situation that prompted me to share my opinion with open arms for criticism.

I thought I had read on a forum that if something is an abstract, it is by definition a publication.

However, an inquiry was made about whether my statement was true, and I was not certain.

After perusing threads, the ICMEJ, and free previews of the AMA Manual of Style, it seems that whether the written work known as an abstract is classified as "published" is more nuanced.

I submitted an abstract to the International Federation of Association of Anatomists (IFAA) in 2014, intending to present it at the meeting. The abstract was accepted, and I was eager to attend to provide a poster-presentation. Unfortunately, I lacked the finances to travel to China and was not able to present the research work before scholars from around the world.

Thus, there was no presentation, but the abstract was printed electronically as a journal appendix on ScienceDirect.

However, PubMed did not index this appendix for the 18th Congress of the IFAA. Parenthetically, PubMed did index those abstracts that were accepted in conjunction with the 16th Congress of the IFAA. Furthermore, the journal that my abstract is printed in is indexed by PubMed, but the supplementary appendix containing the abstracts was not.

The citation is
Snodgrass BT. The eponyms vessels of Wearn and vessels of Thebesius are essential terms to describe the heart's vasculature. [IFAA Abstract]. Ann Anat. 2014;196:S4. Abstract 2014-1-008. DOI: 10.1016/j.aanat.2014.05.035


Some abstracts are considered "published," but they are probably of lesser significance than full-text articles. Personally, I dislike citing abstracts, but I needed a reasoned understanding of whether an abstract is considered published.

----
The Takeaway

Not all abstracts are published.
----

Comments, suggestions, and feedback are welcome.