Weighting of Publications and Abstracts in ERAS

[Spetzler-Martin]

Current MS1 here. I have a quick question about ERAS ( I know it's early but figured I should learn this now). From what I've heard, abstracts, conferences, and actual peer reviewed publications all fall under the block of "publications" and that ERAS somehow computes a score from this. Therefore, my question is, do residency directors actually sort out the actual peer reviewed publications from the other items mentioned in the "publication" list. Additionally, how important is this overall publication score in residency admissions? At the moment I'm working on a few different papers without any intention of submitting them to a conference as well. However, if this "score" matters, I might as well submit the abstracts to a bunch of a different conferences.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Current MS1 here. I have a quick question about ERAS ( I know it's early but figured I should learn this now). From what I've heard, abstracts, conferences, and actual peer reviewed publications all fall under the block of "publications" and that ERAS somehow computes a score from this. Therefore, my question is, do residency directors actually sort out the actual peer reviewed publications from the other items mentioned in the "publication" list. Additionally, how important is this overall publication score in residency admissions? At the moment I'm working on a few different papers without any intention of submitting them to a conference as well. However, if this "score" matters, I might as well submit the abstracts to a bunch of a different conferences.

Yes, PDs sort through to see what you have. There is no "score," but it's generally pretty easy to tell if you've done something reputable vs. a bunch of garbage.

Everything is relative. "Something" is better than "nothing," so whatever you're working on won't be a waste. But while quantity is good at the med student level, quality is also important--a single manuscript in a good journal is worth five garbage abstracts (I'm making these numbers up).

Finally--most conferences don't allow you to submit abstracts that have previously been submitted, and if PDs see that you have multiple abstracts with the same name/topic at different conferences that wouldn't be seen favorably.

 

[Redpancreas]

I think this is a good question. Second what everyone's said. Not sure what ERAS does with it but there are places to put something as a publication, conference, etc. I imagine program directors may filter by volume after they've already filtered by a lot of other things (Steps, Grades, etc.) to see who's interested in research. To answer your question I'm sure that once they do that they actual read the research. There may be some variance in how carefully they do this depending on the mission of the residency. In regards to your strategy, focus on meaningful information rather than quantity. I think it's more genuine to talk about the process than have 10 publications lined up...but then again...some places won't care to tell the difference.

 

[longhaul3]

It's not a score. It's just the total number of entries you make.

If your field of interest is consistent with your username then you need both quality and quantity. It will be the single most important part of your application by far, especially with Step 1 going p/f.

 

[slowthai]

It's not a score. It's just the total number of entries you make.

If your field of interest is consistent with your username then you need both quality and quantity. It will be the single most important part of your application by far, especially with Step 1 going p/f.

Interesting, so you don't think step 2 will be more important? I'd imagine that the step filters they were using will just switch to step 2 and it'd just be business as usual. Or maybe I'm not as well versed on the game for nsg. Maybe research has always been more important than step. Idk.

 

[Lawpy]

Interesting, so you don't think step 2 will be more important? I'd imagine that the step filters they were using will just switch to step 2 and it'd just be business as usual. Or maybe I'm not as well versed on the game for nsg. Maybe research has always been more important than step. Idk.

I was thinking the same, but perhaps because we have no data on how PDs weigh Step 2 vs research, we should be going all out on research if it ends up having close to equal footing with Step 2 scores.

Probably because Step 2 might go P/F in few years once the pressure intensifies?

Also the heavy focus on research is a bit depressing because it's hard to publish good research even with having a good mentor. It becomes a weird research politics game that heavily favors top schools because they're research powerhouses who know how to play the game and have deep connections.

 

[slowthai]

Probably because Step 2 might go P/F in few years once the pressure intensifies?

Also the heavy focus on research is a bit depressing because it's hard to publish good research even with having a good mentor. It becomes a weird research politics game that heavily favors top schools because they're research powerhouses who know how to play the game and have deep connections.

I mean, I doubt PDs are thinking that far ahead tbh. They'd rather go off the metrics they do have, I reckon. But I agree, it's kind of a stupid game. At least with step, you can even the playing field by sheer dint of hard work. If you're not able to play the research game due to lack of resources or for whatever reason, a research year might be in the cards.

 

[aldol16]

Agree with most of what has been said with two points:

1) Some conferences do allow abstracts to be presented more than once, given when the abstract is submitted for the conference it has not been published or presented anywhere else. Other conferences say it's ok as long as it hasn't been accepted anywhere else when it's submitted to that conference. Basically this allows people to submit to multiple conferences since it can take months for the abstract decisions to be announced so you're not prevented from getting your abstract accepted somewhere.

2) I highly doubt PDs read all the papers. They'll probably skim the titles and journal names to get a sense of the quality but they don't have the time to read the papers from every applicant. There's a reason why places have research rooms on interviews.

 

[Lawpy]

I mean, I doubt PDs are thinking that far ahead tbh. They'd rather go off the metrics they do have, I reckon. But I agree, it's kind of a stupid game. At least with step, you can even the playing field by sheer dint of hard work. If you're not able to play the research game due to lack of resources or for whatever reason, a research year might be in the cards.

Even then i'm not sure how a research year would help if research is more important than Step 2. Someone at Stanford can find the right people and churn out high impact papers like crazy in 4 years. A research year can help but it's a lot more variable and even finding the best mentor might not result in the quantity (or maybe even quality) of papers compared to the Stanford guy.

 

[Lawpy]

What's your definition for a "crazy" number of papers?

And I agree. Plus the name of a Stanford/UCSF/ Harvard-like school would also add to whatever research output that applicant has.

At least 10+. I know clinical research is pretty quick to churn out so 10+ isn't a stretch, but it takes a pretty significant commitment and a strong relationship with attendings to pump out that many papers.

 

[Lawpy]

Although the trick to massively churn out papers anywhere seems to be to show attendings that you're good at stats and data analysis. That way they don't have to waste time waiting for a statistician

I began to realize that having a stats degree would really help

 

[Lawpy]

Yeah. I have 10 papers from undergrad. Haha. So it's definitely feasible as a medical student. Currently finishing up 6 right now and I'm aiming to have 9 more finished by the end of summer. At a rate of 15 projects per year, perhaps 70 percent will actually make it to the final cut, and should put me in good place for neurosurgery match.

I don't think you'd need to worry about research other than getting at least few papers out of your specialty of interest. Papers are forever permanent and so the undergrad papers can be listed freely in ERAS and pretty much alone can put you in the top percentile in research category.

 

[Lawpy]

You just figured out my secret. Currently adding machine learning to my arsenal over winter break (random forests, decision trees, gradient boosting).

Also, there's a dark, unspoken secret in medicine which is the ghost authorship thing. Unfortunately, it exists and it's a component to churning out a high degree of papers. I often don't even know who some of the names on my papers are.

Yeah it's a dirty business. Which is why Step 2 being more important than research is necessary.

 

[slowthai]

Even then i'm not sure how a research year would help if research is more important than Step 2. Someone at Stanford can find the right people and churn out high impact papers like crazy in 4 years. A research year can help but it's a lot more variable and even finding the best mentor might not result in the quantity (or maybe even quality) of papers compared to the Stanford guy.

But you have to account for the relationships developed during the year as well, which can supercede whatever inadequacies an applicant has. Furthermore, the average nsg applicant isn't from Stanford, so I don't think that's an apt comparison.

 

[slowthai]

Off topic but if you check out Stanford's list of neurosurgery residents ( Current Residents ), most of the residents went to T-10 schools and a significant majority went to T-5s. What's even more crazy is that Stanford's neurosurgery program isn't even a top 10 program.

I'm lucky that I go to T-5, but I feel for what other students outside of T-10 have to go through if Step is no longer the most significant factor

I mean, but that's Stanford, though. Even though it may not be a top program, that name still carries major weight. But there's an inequity of opportunity, no doubt.

 

[Frogger27]

Somewhat of an unpopular opinion, but as an M4 applying to a competitive specialty going through the process currently, I tend to learn toward quantity > quality. I had 40 abstracts/presentations/publications on ERAS (18 manuscripts either published, accepted or submitted), mediocre grades (Step 1 <240, 3rd quartile, 1 H, etc), mid-tier state school not known for being research powerhouse, and received >20 IIs. The sheer quantity of research has been mentioned on every single one of my interviews.

All of the projects are good quality, although most likely not practice changing. I was not targeting NEJM, Nature, or the top specialty journals (eg, JBJS or AJSM for ortho as an example). Mostly low or mid tier journals.

Residences don't have time to read over any of your research. The typical questions I have been asked:
1) Which project are you most proud of/was your favorite
2) Can you tell me about this project (very generic what you did/results)
3) How were you able to get this many publications (Got fortunate to learn how to conduct my own research/stats early in medical school, got access to large databases where data was freely accessible, built a team of med students to help, etc).

There is a lot they can take away from an applicant who has a ton of research. Namely:
1) This applicant must be highly motivated and takes initiative (eg, grit, perseverance, etc).
2) this person is a finisher and will get things done.
3) This person must get along and work well in a team
4) Student is interested in research, will not need to be handheld to get things done, and will be an asset to our residency

I am not advocating for publishing crap research. As I said, I would not consider any of my research crap. But I do think that being able to learn how to conduct research and pump out a ton of projects does demonstrate many desirable traits that residences (particularly surgical subspecialties) want in a resident. I think you can learn more about a student who has more shear quantity of publications in lower journals than a student who has one middle author in a top journal.

 

[Frogger27]

If I may ask, what are you trying to match into? Also, it's definitely not an unpopular opinion. I feel that if you aim for quantity, by random chance some of those projects will end up getting into good journals. I have two articles in N. Communications and one in a IF >15 GI journal when I didn't even pick those projects based on inherent quality.

Ortho

 

[Lawpy]

But you have to account for the relationships developed during the year as well, which can supercede whatever inadequacies an applicant has. Furthermore, the average nsg applicant isn't from Stanford, so I don't think that's an apt comparison.

If research becomes more important than Step 2, it'll be a lot easier to match nsgy coming from a top school.

Also 4 years can develop even stronger relationships + home program preference/popularity + networking with big names easily at other top places. Hard to do all that in a single research year

 

[slowthai]

If research becomes more important than Step 2, it'll be a lot easier to match nsgy coming from a top school

Of course. All I'm saying is that if you don't go to a top school or you go to a school with a lackluster research infrastructure, you're not down for the count.

 

[Lawpy]

Of course. All I'm saying is that if you don't go to a top school or you go to a school with a lackluster research infrastructure, you're not down for the count.

I can agree with this

 

[Redpancreas]

Somewhat of an unpopular opinion, but as an M4 applying to a competitive specialty going through the process currently, I tend to learn toward quantity > quality. I had 40 abstracts/presentations/publications on ERAS (18 manuscripts either published, accepted or submitted), mediocre grades (Step 1 <240, 3rd quartile, 1 H, etc), mid-tier state school not known for being research powerhouse, and received >20 IIs. The sheer quantity of research has been mentioned on every single one of my interviews.

All of the projects are good quality, although most likely not practice changing. I was not targeting NEJM, Nature, or the top specialty journals (eg, JBJS or AJSM for ortho as an example). Mostly low or mid tier journals.

Residences don't have time to read over any of your research. The typical questions I have been asked:
1) Which project are you most proud of/was your favorite
2) Can you tell me about this project (very generic what you did/results)
3) How were you able to get this many publications (Got fortunate to learn how to conduct my own research/stats early in medical school, got access to large databases where data was freely accessible, built a team of med students to help, etc).

There is a lot they can take away from an applicant who has a ton of research. Namely:
1) This applicant must be highly motivated and takes initiative (eg, grit, perseverance, etc).
2) this person is a finisher and will get things done.
3) This person must get along and work well in a team
4) Student is interested in research, will not need to be handheld to get things done, and will be an asset to our residency

I am not advocating for publishing crap research. As I said, I would not consider any of my research crap. But I do think that being able to learn how to conduct research and pump out a ton of projects does demonstrate many desirable traits that residences (particularly surgical subspecialties) want in a resident. I think you can learn more about a student who has more shear quantity of publications in lower journals than a student who has one middle author in a top journal.

Not in Ortho but I think this is an interesting perspective and didn't really think about things this way,

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Conference abstracts are usually not peer-reviewed and mostly fluff, but it's better than nothing (conferences very much work by accepting as many abstracts as possible to fill up the society coffers). Peer-reviewed publications are usually easy to sort out because they have an associated PMID and yes, they count for more mentally.

 

[longhaul3]

Interesting, so you don't think step 2 will be more important? I'd imagine that the step filters they were using will just switch to step 2 and it'd just be business as usual. Or maybe I'm not as well versed on the game for nsg. Maybe research has always been more important than step. Idk.

I was thinking the same, but perhaps because we have no data on how PDs weigh Step 2 vs research, we should be going all out on research if it ends up having close to equal footing with Step 2 scores.

Research is exploding in terms of importance in the neurosurgery match. For many programs I believe it's already more important than Step 1.

Step 2CK will be important, but I believe it will also be p/f before long.

 

[slowthai]

Lol. That's good to hear because research is my strong suit. I've always wondered why research is so important in neurosurgery though compared to other fields. In my school, the neurosurgery department (both residents and attendings) is significantly more prolific than any other department in the school. I'm assuming it's because there's still so little known about the nervous system and therefore, as a neurosurgeon, you are expected to contribute towards adding to the knowledge base. But perhaps there are other reasons I'm not aware of.

Also @slowthai. Are you interested in nsg as well?

Nope. Ortho. I was gung ho nsg before med school though. But then I grew up, lol

 

[DrOngoGablogian]

Wait. You actually get rewarded for having a weird personality?

Other way around

 

[Qwerty122]

If it helps, here is a recent pub exploring the research output of matched nsgy residents: The neurosurgery applicant's "arms race": analysis of medical student publication in the Neurosurgery Residency Match - PubMed

And one for ortho: Medical Student Research Productivity: Which Variables are Associated with Matching to a Highly Ranked Orthopaedic Residency Program? - PubMed

 

[Qwerty122]

Interesting. An average of 6 papers isn't too crazy. I'm also the questioning the validity of using google scholar as a metric for determining publications counts as many people, like myself, include abstracts in google scholar as well. Additionally, using the publication counts of interns might not be the best approach since they could have published some papers during the course of intern year and MS4 (so prior to submitting the ERAS application).

Also this is reassuring and makes the article title sound somewhat sensational. "The authors found that the temporal trend toward increased total research products over time in neurosurgery applicants was driven mostly by increased nonindexed research (abstracts, presentations, chapters) rather than by increased peer-reviewed publications."

My thoughts exactly, so the real value most likely lies somewhere below the cited 5.5 papers, which is very doable if you do 1 paper/semester.

 

[longhaul3]

From what I’ve heard about nsg applicant deliberations from a sibling, personality weirdness trumps them both as the primary deciding factor. I imagine that probably depends on the program though lol.

Not being weird is a baseline requirement. Most applicants are sufficiently not weird to meet that requirement. It is not a high enough hurdle to differentiate between most good applicants.