Let me say this plainly: an in-progress manuscript is not fake, but it is also not a publication. That distinction sounds obvious until application season, when people start padding ERAS with half-built projects, lab rumors, and papers that exist mostly as aspirations. I have seen applicants call a shared Google Doc with a title page an “in-progress manuscript.” Wrong. I have also seen strong applicants leave off legitimate manuscript work because they were too cautious. Also wrong.
ERAS does give you room to show scholarly momentum. You should use that room. But use it with discipline. Program directors are not impressed by decorative research entries. They are looking for evidence that you actually do the work, understand the project, and can defend every line on your application when somebody asks about it in a five-minute interview between cases or clinic.
This is where people get burned. Not by lacking a Cell paper. By being sloppy. By overstating. By listing four “manuscripts in progress” and then freezing when asked, “What journal are you targeting?” or “What was your role in the methods section?”
So let me break this down specifically: what “in-progress” really means on ERAS, when it is appropriate, how reviewers interpret it, and how to keep yourself out of the red-flag pile.
What “In-Progress” Actually Means on ERAS
“In-progress” on ERAS is application language, not a universal publishing category. Journals do not generally classify manuscripts as “in progress.” ERAS applicants do. That means the burden is on you to make sure the label reflects a real, documentable stage of work.
Here is the practical hierarchy:
- In progress / in preparation: the manuscript is actively being written or revised before submission.
- Submitted: the manuscript has actually been sent to a journal.
- Under review: the journal has the manuscript and peer review is ongoing.
- Accepted: the journal has formally accepted it.
- Published / e-published: it is publicly available in print or online.
These are not interchangeable. They are not vibes. They are stages. If you blur them, you create an honesty problem.
The best way to think about “in progress” is this: there is a real manuscript, based on real work, with identifiable authors, and a plausible path to submission. Usually that means the analysis is done or nearly done, figures/tables exist, and an actual draft has been written. Maybe coauthors are editing. Maybe the discussion section is getting cleaned up. Fine. That is in progress.
What does not count? An idea discussed at lab meeting. A chart review you might start next month. A project where you consented patients but never touched the writing. A mentor’s ongoing paper where your name may or may not appear someday. That is not an in-progress manuscript. That is research involvement, maybe. Not manuscript status.
Precision matters because programs read these entries as evidence of productivity and scholarly maturity. Not as promises. A line that says “manuscript in progress” tells them you are participating in academic work that is moving. It does not tell them the paper is good, close to acceptance, or destined for publication. And that is exactly why wording matters so much.
How Program Directors Interpret In-Progress Manuscripts
Program directors are not naive. They have read thousands of applications. They know what an in-progress manuscript can mean at its best and what it often means at its worst.
At its best, an in-progress manuscript signals three useful things:
- You were engaged enough in a project to help push it toward a paper
- You understand the arc of scholarship beyond data collection
- You have momentum, meaning you are not just collecting disconnected research experiences with no output trail
That matters. Especially if your application tells a coherent story. A neurology applicant with two completed posters, one submitted case report, and one in-progress stroke outcomes manuscript looks like someone who genuinely participates in academic work. A general surgery applicant with a quality improvement project that became an in-progress manuscript shows follow-through. Programs notice that.
But here is what they do not assume:
- That the manuscript is finished
- That it has been submitted anywhere
- That it will be accepted
- That it is in a major journal
- That your contribution was substantial unless you make that clear
In other words, “in progress” is a soft positive, not a hard credential.
And yes, specialty matters. In highly research-intensive fields, the label gets more scrutiny. Think dermatology, radiation oncology, ophthalmology, neurosurgery, academic internal medicine tracks, and some top-tier integrated surgical programs. In those settings, reviewers are more likely to parse the difference between:
- manuscript drafted,
- manuscript submitted,
- and project vaguely orbiting publication.
I have seen this happen in interviews. An applicant lists five in-progress manuscripts for a competitive specialty. Interviewer picks one and asks, “What were the primary endpoints?” Silence. Then, “Has it been submitted?” Answer: “Not yet, we are still collecting some data.” That is not a manuscript in progress. That is an active study, maybe. The distinction is brutal because it reveals either carelessness or inflation.
For less research-heavy specialties, the standard is usually more forgiving, but honesty still matters. Even if the reviewers are not deeply interrogating the publication pipeline, they are still using your entries to judge credibility. One defensible in-progress manuscript is stronger than a bloated list of questionable ones. Every time.
When Listing an In-Progress Manuscript Is Appropriate
This is where most applicants need a decision rule, not vague reassurance.
You should list an in-progress manuscript when there is an actual manuscript taking shape and your role is real. Good examples:
- The study is complete, and a full draft exists.
- Data analysis is done, and coauthors are reviewing the paper.
- You wrote major sections and are helping revise before submission.
- Submission is imminent because the manuscript is essentially assembled.
- It is a case report or review article with a working draft and defined authorship.
That is normal, defensible use of the label.
Now the red flags.
Do not list it as an in-progress manuscript if:
- it is only an idea,
- the project has no draft,
- data collection is still early with no paper written,
- your contribution was superficial and you cannot explain the work,
- authorship is uncertain,
- there is no realistic path to submission during the application cycle.
A lot of students get tripped up by the middle category: legitimate research, wrong section. You absolutely may have meaningful scholarly work that does not belong under manuscript/publication entries yet. That is fine. ERAS gives you other places to show it.
Use this framework:
Put it in Publications/Manuscripts if:
- there is a real paper draft,
- you are an actual author,
- the manuscript stage is honestly describable.
Put it in Research Experience if:
- the study is active but not yet manuscript-ready,
- your work was in design, recruitment, chart abstraction, lab procedures, or analysis,
- output is still pending.
Put it in Presentations if:
- the project has become a poster, podium talk, abstract, or conference submission,
- that output is the most concrete scholarly product so far.
That last point matters more than people realize. A poster presentation is often cleaner and more credible than an overclaimed “in-progress manuscript.” If all you have right now is an accepted abstract and a strong project description, use that. Do not force immature work into a publication-shaped box just because you think it sounds better.
If you are stuck, ask yourself one blunt question: If an interviewer asks me to describe the paper’s question, methods, findings, my authorship role, and next step, can I answer clearly in 30 seconds? If not, the entry is too weak or too early.
How to Describe It Correctly on the Application
The right wording is clean, restrained, and specific. No drama. No CV cosplay.
A strong in-progress entry usually includes:
- working title or descriptive title,
- author list or your authorship position if relevant,
- status language such as “manuscript in preparation” or “manuscript in progress,”
- journal target only if that target is real and not fantasy,
- dates that make sense.
Here are examples of good wording:
- Smith J, Patel R, YourName. Outcomes of early mobilization after ischemic stroke. Manuscript in preparation.
- YourName, Lee A, Chen M. Case report of fulminant myocarditis after viral illness. Draft completed; coauthor review underway.
- YourName (first author), Kumar S, et al. Predictors of no-show rates in resident clinic. Manuscript in progress; submission planned to a peer-reviewed outpatient care journal.
Notice the pattern. Specific but not inflated.
Bad wording looks like this:
- “Publication pending”
- “Paper being submitted soon”
- “Submitted to top journal” when it has not been submitted
- “Accepted manuscript” when what you mean is your mentor liked the draft
- Formatting an in-progress item to look like a full citation with journal volume/pages that do not exist
That last one is a classic bad move. Reviewers see right through fake citation styling. If there is no journal issue, DOI, or publication record, do not format it like there is. You are not tricking anyone except maybe yourself.
A few details to handle carefully:
1. Author position
If you are first author and that is settled, say so if the field allows or if the formatting makes it clear. If authorship is still moving around, be careful. I have seen applicants list themselves first author because that was true in April, then by September the mentor reordered the manuscript. Awkward. If author order is not locked, avoid overcommitting.
2. Mentors and documentation
Make sure your mentor would confirm the project exists in the form you described. This should be obvious, but students still copy wording from a PI’s running project sheet without checking. Then the PI writes a letter using different language. Now your file is inconsistent.
3. Dates
Use dates that match reality. If you list a project as “2022–present” and call the manuscript in progress, be ready to explain why it has remained “in progress” for two years. Sometimes there is a good reason. Often there is not.
4. Journal target
You do not need to name a target journal, but if you do, make sure it is plausible. Saying a small retrospective chart review is being prepared for The New England Journal of Medicine just makes you sound unserious.
5. Status changes before interviews
If the manuscript gets submitted, under review, accepted, or published after ERAS submission, great. Update it if the system and timeline allow, or mention it during interviews and in update communications if appropriate. But only after the status truly changes. Not “we hit submit this morning but the PDF failed.” Actual status only.
A practical template I like:
- Title. Authors. Manuscript in preparation. Your role: study design/data analysis/drafting. Anticipated submission: Fall 2026.
You may not use that exact field structure depending on how ERAS presents the section, but conceptually that is the sweet spot: accurate stage, concrete role, no embellishment.
If you want one rule to remember, use this: Write the entry so that your mentor, a program director, and your future self would all describe it the same way. If those three versions diverge, the wording is too aggressive.
Common Mistakes and Red Flags Programs Notice
The biggest mistake is quantity over credibility. Applicants think eight in-progress manuscripts look impressive. Usually they look messy. Especially when none are submitted, none are presented, and the descriptions are vague. That reads like a lab inventory, not personal scholarship.
Other common red flags:
- Idea inflation: calling planned projects “manuscripts in progress”
- Authorship inflation: listing yourself prominently when your role was peripheral
- Submission inflation: saying “submitted” when the draft was merely emailed among coauthors
- CV copy-paste sloppiness: using mentor language that you cannot defend
- Inconsistency across materials: ERAS says first author manuscript in progress, personal statement says “assisted with a project,” interview answer suggests you mostly recruited participants
Reviewers do cross-check. Not always formally, but they notice mismatches. If your ERAS research section, CV, personal statement, and interview story all describe the same project differently, you create doubt. And once doubt starts, people re-read everything through that lens.
I have watched this happen with otherwise strong applicants. A tiny exaggeration became the memorable thing. Not their Step score. Not their clerkship grades. The weird manuscript claim. That is a terrible trade.
Strategic Advice: When to Include It, When to Leave It Off
Here is my rule: include the manuscript if it strengthens your application narrative and can withstand scrutiny. Leave it off if you need a paragraph of excuses to justify why it is there.
Good reasons to include it:
- it shows follow-through,
- it fits your specialty story,
- you can explain it confidently,
- your mentor would back the description without hesitation.
Good reasons to leave it off or move it elsewhere:
- the work is too early,
- authorship is unclear,
- the manuscript does not yet exist in draft form,
- your contribution was too thin,
- the entry only exists to make your numbers look bigger.
And remember the alternatives:
- list the project as Research Experience
- include the poster or abstract
- discuss the evolving work during interviews if asked
- update programs later if the manuscript reaches a higher status
The priority list is simple:
- Be accurate
- Be defensible
- Be strategic
- Do not pad
A shorter, cleaner ERAS is stronger than a crowded one full of soft claims. Every year, people forget that. You should not.
The truth about in-progress manuscripts is not complicated. They can help. They can absolutely backfire. The difference is whether the entry reflects real scholarly work or hopeful fiction. If it is real, list it carefully. If it is not ready, move it to the right section or leave it alone. That is how you protect both your credibility and your application.
FAQ
1. Can I list a manuscript as in-progress if it has not been submitted yet?
Yes, if there is a real manuscript with substantial work completed and a credible path to submission. I mean an actual draft, real authorship, and a project you can explain clearly. If all you have is an idea, an outline, or a study still drifting through data collection, do not call it an in-progress manuscript.
2. Will program directors assume it is basically a publication?
No. Good reviewers do not confuse “in progress” with “published,” and neither should you. They read it as evidence of active scholarly work and productivity trajectory, not as a finished academic product. That is why honest wording matters so much.
3. Should I include every manuscript my lab is working on?
Absolutely not. Include only the manuscripts you meaningfully contributed to and can discuss without stumbling. I have seen applicants overload ERAS with lab-adjacent projects that were impossible to defend in interviews. It makes you look inflated, not impressive.
4. What if the manuscript gets published after I submit ERAS?
That is the right kind of problem. If the cycle is still active, update programs through the appropriate channel or mention it during interviews once the status is real and documented. Just do not jump the gun. “Almost published” is not published.
