Things you can't "prove" on your CV

[MirkoCrocop]

---

Members do not see this ad.

As I get older, some of my old abstracts/posters that I still list on my CV are becoming less and less easy to "prove" weren't made up.

For one in particular, evidence of the poster used to be online on my undergraduate school's research website, but in recent years was removed. I can't even find the old poster, but still list it on my CV.

I imagine there are many of us that have things from undergrad that we can't technically prove we did. No one has ever even asked me to present proof about an old research project on any interview.

I know this is a little paranoid, but do you all list things from undergrad that have since become impossible to show anything for?

Just curious what other opinions on this are.

 

[skew2002]

It has never really crossed my mind, nor has anyone during residency, fellowship, or job interviews ever asked for such proof. As long as you can explain what you did in the project you should be fine. Actually, it would be a red flag to me if someone didn't believe me regarding a research project from many years ago. I mean what does that say about their confidence in you as a person? I for one would not want to work for someone like that.

skew2002

 

[earthworm]

The things you can't prove are likely not that important. Once you start applying for jobs, academic employers care about your publications and private employers don't really care about research as much. People might look up your publications, but I doubt they'll look up posters.

 

[deleted314957]

The things you can't prove are likely not that important. Once you start applying for jobs, academic employers care about your publications and private employers don't really care about research as much. People might look up your publications, but I doubt they'll look up posters.

Agree completly

 

[2121115]

If it matters, it can be proven. All of your actual publications should be documented in PubMed and easily searchable. Abstracts don't matter anyway, so no one will ever bother to look them up in the first place because they won't really care.

 

[dermpathdoc]

depends on the abstract...some posters and abstracts if at national meetings will be on some national journals

 

[mlw03]

If it matters, it can be proven. All of your actual publications should be documented in PubMed and easily searchable. Abstracts don't matter anyway, so no one will ever bother to look them up in the first place because they won't really care.

If abstracts don't matter then why the hell were faculty always pushing residents to submit them?

 

[2121115]

Abstracts at USCAP and CAP (some other meetings too) are published in a journal (Modern Path, Archives, etc) and should be documented as such. These do not show up on PubMed but they should still be documented as you would for a journal (with a byline) but noting that it was a abstract. Even though they are not searchable on PubMed it is still documented and "provable" with the journal.

Abstracts don't really matter because they should be followed up by a journal publication that is indexed in PubMed. If not then it shows that you can't close the deal and don't follow through. Faculty push residents to do them because 1) it gets residents involved in a project that they will (hopefully, see above) publish and get the faculty member's name on it, and 2) it looks good for the program to be represented at meetings (i.e. to all their academic peers when they walk around and look at the posters and see lots of them with the University of XYZ logo on it). If an institution gets a reputation for residents always presenting at USCAP then word gets around that the faculty there are active (since that is where the ideas for projects mostly come from).

 

[mlw03]

Abstracts at USCAP and CAP (some other meetings too) are published in a journal (Modern Path, Archives, etc) and should be documented as such. These do not show up on PubMed but they should still be documented as you would for a journal (with a byline) but noting that it was a abstract. Even though they are not searchable on PubMed it is still documented and "provable" with the journal.

Abstracts don't really matter because they should be followed up by a journal publication that is indexed in PubMed. If not then it shows that you can't close the deal and don't follow through. Faculty push residents to do them because 1) it gets residents involved in a project that they will (hopefully, see above) publish and get the faculty member's name on it, and 2) it looks good for the program to be represented at meetings (i.e. to all their academic peers when they walk around and look at the posters and see lots of them with the University of XYZ logo on it). If an institution gets a reputation for residents always presenting at USCAP then word gets around that the faculty there are active (since that is where the ideas for projects mostly come from).

So this is an argument I had with the faculty in my residency program. The next question is, then what? By that I mean is the research something that really matters to improving the practice of pathology, or is it just something to do for the sake of the paper? My frustration is that most of the projects I saw my co-residents involved in were the latter, and the residents didn't give a crap about the topic and were just doing it to further their CVs.

 

[KCShaw]

I think there's a lot of crappy fluff out there masquerading as research, primarily it seems written by those with an ulterior motive (CV, trying to get a residency, trying to get a fellowship, trying to get a job, trying to not get fired from academia, etc.), but at the same time the point has been made that sometimes that's the only way to get people into it and the fluff may be worth the few things that grow into something more useful. At some point it dawned on me that there are soooo many case reports and short series out there, and residents in particular spend time looking haphazardly at them for some case or other of theirs, that residents really should be putting together and publishing more metanalyses and reviews, which are useful both to the individual and the profession, and often are little more than what they're already doing.

As for the OP's question, I tend to agree that important things can be proved (educational degrees, etc.), but at the same time I try to keep copies of everything I list on my CV -- when possible. I have lectures & talks I've given listed on my CV but no real way to prove the time & date & audience I gave them as many courses/whatever don't have their own little brochure (which only proves I was scheduled to do it, not that I did), and it's kinda impractical if not silly to scan and file those too.

That said, there are people out there who happily exploit the fact that hardly anyone ever checks for proof of what's on someone's CV, with the possible exception of new employers checking very basic credentials (board status, degrees)... though even those might only be checked by getting one to provide a copy of a certificate, which is obviously fakeable. Employers and others making decisions based on CV's have to draw the line somewhere between trust and not wanting to be burned about something like that.

 

[2121115]

I think there's a lot of crappy fluff out there masquerading as research, primarily it seems written by those with an ulterior motive (CV, trying to get a residency, trying to get a fellowship, trying to get a job, trying to not get fired from academia, etc.), but at the same time the point has been made that sometimes that's the only way to get people into it and the fluff may be worth the few things that grow into something more useful. At some point it dawned on me that there are soooo many case reports and short series out there, and residents in particular spend time looking haphazardly at them for some case or other of theirs, that residents really should be putting together and publishing more metanalyses and reviews, which are useful both to the individual and the profession, and often are little more than what they're already doing.

As for the OP's question, I tend to agree that important things can be proved (educational degrees, etc.), but at the same time I try to keep copies of everything I list on my CV -- when possible. I have lectures & talks I've given listed on my CV but no real way to prove the time & date & audience I gave them as many courses/whatever don't have their own little brochure (which only proves I was scheduled to do it, not that I did), and it's kinda impractical if not silly to scan and file those too.

That said, there are people out there who happily exploit the fact that hardly anyone ever checks for proof of what's on someone's CV, with the possible exception of new employers checking very basic credentials (board status, degrees)... though even those might only be checked by getting one to provide a copy of a certificate, which is obviously fakeable. Employers and others making decisions based on CV's have to draw the line somewhere between trust and not wanting to be burned about something like that.

Remember, TTF-1 staining of lung adenocarcinomas was just an USCAP poster one year... then it blew up and now everyone uses it everyday.

 

[gbwillner]

If abstracts don't matter then why the hell were faculty always pushing residents to submit them?

So they can make their program seem like it has a research bent to other programs. Plus, abstracts ARE SUPPOSED to be turned into papers. So that does matter, but you have to start somewhere.

But no, abstracts are completely worthless in a CV, IMHO, unless they result in papers. Really, all they are good for is filler so your CV isn't only 1/2 a page long.

 

[Pathguy11]

So they can make their program seem like it has a research bent to other programs. Plus, abstracts ARE SUPPOSED to be turned into papers. So that does matter, but you have to start somewhere.

But no, abstracts are completely worthless in a CV, IMHO, unless they result in papers. Really, all they are good for is filler so your CV isn't only 1/2 a page long.

The only other thing that poster presentation are good for on your CV is to show a certain level of motivation above the baseline. That is if you have absolutely none on your CV after 4 years of residency, that shows that you basically didn't make an effort to do anything above and beyond the baseline expections. I doubt it would be a huge factor but it was commented on in one of my private practice interviews that I had a lot of "publications" and was I interested in academics also. Actually I only have two minor peer reviewed case reports and all the rest are poster presentations...with none of these poster abstracts resulting in a paper. On some level it might suggest that you would be above average in the motivation department. On the other hand I have heard that a CV like mine with mostly abstracts and posters can backfire in academic job search because they are more likely to ask the question "why didn't you write these up and publish them". In academics it could suggest that you don't have appropriate follow through. Who knows really... Regardless they are good for padding your CV and for a few trips to national meetings. These trips could (or should) result in networking opportunities with other practicing Pathologists which could help you find a job one day.

Pathguy11