sf match form, publications

[utswmedstd]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

kindof nit-picky question:

on the sf match form in the publications section, the instructions state to list publications in chronological order. I would think this means most recent last (ie, 2002, then 2005, then 2010); however, earlier in the application (in the education section) it states to "list in chronological order (most recent first)"

i know this is really nit-picky, but what does everyone think? Fill out the publications in "most recent first" order, or use what i thought was true chronological order (ie 2002, then 2005, then 2010)?

Thanks!

 

[EyeMD116]

I did the most recent first.. I think that is the standard format, but I may be wrong!

kindof nit-picky question:

on the sf match form in the publications section, the instructions state to list publications in chronological order. I would think this means most recent last (ie, 2002, then 2005, then 2010); however, earlier in the application (in the education section) it states to "list in chronological order (most recent first)"

i know this is really nit-picky, but what does everyone think? Fill out the publications in "most recent first" order, or use what i thought was true chronological order (ie 2002, then 2005, then 2010)?

Thanks!

 

[azzarah]

kindof nit-picky question:

on the sf match form in the publications section, the instructions state to list publications in chronological order. I would think this means most recent last (ie, 2002, then 2005, then 2010); however, earlier in the application (in the education section) it states to "list in chronological order (most recent first)"

i know this is really nit-picky, but what does everyone think? Fill out the publications in "most recent first" order, or use what i thought was true chronological order (ie 2002, then 2005, then 2010)?

Thanks!

I did reverse chronological and definitely did not give the full citation. A lot of et al's.