Should scientific research publications be listed separately?

[LIC2015]

I have 2 published papers on neuroepigenomic mechanisms of brain disorders, should these be listed individually in the activities/work section? I may have up to 3 or 4 more by the time I submit my application, but this would of course take up a tremendous amount of space that I could use for other activities that may arguably be as useful if not more important than some of the papers. Any advice on how to best approach this? Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[premed626]

wondering the same thing

 

[Daenerys Targaryen]

You can combine things within that section. Title it "Publications" and list them in your description.

 

[aldol16]

You could either list all publications under one heading or, if you're really short on space, list each publication with the research experience if you have room.

 

[Earl Simmons]

Congrats on the pubs and props for being a total boss.

I would list under Publications and be sure to use all the characters allotted to bullet list the title, authorship, presentations, posters, and talks with dates.

Keep a record of the above as it will come in handy when residency applications roll around and you aren't trying to remember dates and specific posters and such.

Edit: If one of your papers is in the process of being published you should still list it and say "manuscript under review" and the date submitted. If not submitted yet, say "manuscript under preparation".

Hopefully you have characters to spare to describe your involvement in this lab.

 

[Law2Doc]

Congrats on the pubs and props for being a total boss.

I would list under Publications and be sure to use all the characters allotted to bullet list the title, authorship, presentations, posters, and talks with dates.

Keep a record of the above as it will come in handy when residency applications roll around and you aren't trying to remember dates and specific posters and such.

Edit: If one of your papers is in the process of being published you should still list it and say "manuscript under review" and the date submitted. If not submitted yet, say "manuscript under preparation".

Hopefully you have characters to spare to describe your involvement in this lab.

If not accepted or even submitted yet listing a manuscript looks like you are trying to pad the CV. List nothing that isn't actually at least accepted for publication, in press, etc.

For the OP, the publications section is the right section for accepted works.

 

[LIC2015]

Congrats on the pubs and props for being a total boss.

I would list under Publications and be sure to use all the characters allotted to bullet list the title, authorship, presentations, posters, and talks with dates.

Keep a record of the above as it will come in handy when residency applications roll around and you aren't trying to remember dates and specific posters and such.

Edit: If one of your papers is in the process of being published you should still list it and say "manuscript under review" and the date submitted. If not submitted yet, say "manuscript under preparation".

Hopefully you have characters to spare to describe your involvement in this lab.

Thanks!

 

[LIC2015]

If not accepted or even submitted yet listing a manuscript looks like you are trying to pad the CV. List nothing that isn't actually at least accepted for publication, in press, etc.

For the OP, the publications section is the right section for accepted works.

Ahh, I've heard this from numerous colleagues, especially as it pertains to my CV. There are 4 papers that were submitted and subsequently revised with the stipulation that the editors would accept the paper pending revision. Two of the four were submitted last week, I suspect they'll be accepted by the time I submit my AMCAS app by end of June. For the other two, would you still suggest leaving them out even if they will be resubmitted in late June or July with a high likelihood of publication?

Lastly, I have two poster presentations, one at SFN last year and another at a smaller departmental conference at the Icahn School of Medicine where I work (we call it the Friedman Brain Institute Annual Neuroscience Retreat). Should these be grouped along with the publications? Thanks so much for your help.

 

[typhoonegator]

It's not your fault, because NCBI does this too and the media loves it, but slapping "neuro" onto the beginning of a discipline doesn't transform it into a cooler version of something. Epigenomics is a discipline. Neuroepigenomics is just using epigenomics in the field of neuroscience. I am a complex disease geneticist who happens to study neurologic diseases, but I think "neuro" terminology is pretty lame. You don't see people doing research in gastroepigenomics or ophthoepigenomics or dermatoepigenomics. If you do epigenomic research on neurological disorders of unclear etiology are you suddenly a cryptoneuroepigenomicist? If you do research on the epigenomic impact of low income environments in neurologic disease, are you a socioeconomiconeuroepigenomicist?

"Oh, you did your PhD in epigenomic mechanisms in inflammatory bowel disease? That's cute. I did mine on histone acetylation in PARKINSON'S! Whole different ballgame, punk! Oh, what these eyes have seen!" Neurokinetic mic drop!

Again, not directed at you, not your fault. It's kinda like the astro prefix. Physicist = boring nerd math. But astrophysicist = Star-Lord!

 

[LIC2015]

It's not your fault, because NCBI does this too and the media loves it, but slapping "neuro" onto the beginning of a discipline doesn't transform it into a cooler version of something. Epigenomics is a discipline. Neuroepigenomics is just using epigenomics in the field of neuroscience. I am a complex disease geneticist who happens to study neurologic diseases, but I think "neuro" terminology is pretty lame. You don't see people doing research in gastroepigenomics or ophthoepigenomics or dermatoepigenomics. If you do epigenomic research on neurological disorders of unclear etiology are you suddenly a cryptoneuroepigenomicist? If you do research on the epigenomic impact of low income environments in neurologic disease, are you a socioeconomiconeuroepigenomicist?

"Oh, you did your PhD in epigenomic mechanisms in inflammatory bowel disease? That's cute. I did mine on histone acetylation in PARKINSON'S! Whole different ballgame, punk! Oh, what these eyes have seen!" Neurokinetic mic drop!

Again, not directed at you, not your fault. It's kinda like the astro prefix. Physicist = boring nerd math. But astrophysicist = Star-Lord!

This made me laugh. You have a good point, I'll keep this in mind so as to avoid sounding silly in front of colleagues and adcomms lol. Unfortunately, writing skills and more professional English often get convoluted/ignored in the world of scientific linguistics. It becomes more of a "I know what that word really means" rather than a "that's not an actual word" sort of scenario.

 

[Catalystik]

There are 4 papers that were submitted and subsequently revised with the stipulation that the editors would accept the paper pending revision. Two of the four were submitted last week, I suspect they'll be accepted by the time I submit my AMCAS app by end of June.

1) For the other two, would you still suggest leaving them out even if they will be resubmitted in late June or July with a high likelihood of publication?

2) Lastly, I have two poster presentations, one at SFN last year and another at a smaller departmental conference at the Icahn School of Medicine where I work (we call it the Friedman Brain Institute Annual Neuroscience Retreat). Should these be grouped along with the publications? Thanks so much for your help.

1) Leave those that haven't been accepted off. PIs occasionally decide to do more than the minimum requested for revisions, causing resubmission to take months longer than originally projected. Two later accepted pubs gives you something fresh to report on Secondaries and update letters further into the application year.

2) It depends. If these posters represent earlier reports of the same data that you had published, you can mention them briefly after the publication citation, like : "Similar data presented as a first-authored poster at Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting 9/15" or some such.

OTOH, if the poster resulted from unrelated research, you can cite it fully in a Presentations/Posters space, or if you run out of room, you can mention it after an affiliated research description.

 

[Law2Doc]

1) Leave those that haven't been accepted off. PIs occasionally decide to do more than the minimum requested for revisions, causing resubmission to take months longer than originally projected. Two later accepted pubs gives you something fresh to report on Secondaries and update letters further into the application year.

2) It depends. If these posters represent earlier reports of the same data that you had published, you can mention them briefly after the publication citation, like : "Similar data presented as a first-authored poster at Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting 9/15" or some such.

OTOH, if the poster resulted from unrelated research, you can cite it fully in a Presentations/Posters space, or if you run out of room, you can mention it after an affiliated research description.

Agreed. Leave off those papers that aren't accepted. Things that are accepted pending revision can be listed as such. Posters go in the poster/presentation section (not the publication section). You can include these even if there's a related paper as "presenting" a poster is considered CV worthy ( as opposed to an abstract which goes away once there's a paper or presentation.