My research experiences are a big part of my application. From undergrad (2009-13) and master's (2013-14) studies, and from my current research associate position (2014-present), I've gotten a fair share of publications (10 total) from the various labs.
What's the best approach to listing these? Should I just cram them all into one section within Publications, or should I list the respective publications under the corresponding Research experience for each lab? I feel like the former would come off as very "CV-like", but I'm also worried about space for the latter. Almost half of my publications came from my current research lab and I've used up most of that space to describe my the work experience and it's also one of my most meaningful experiences.
I'm leaning towards just listing them all in chronological order under Publications. Is it appropriate to just list them like: [authorship rank][title][journal][date] to make it more compact?
Here is an example of a super-condensed Publication entry using PMID#, thanks to tmax, which you could adapt for your own purposes. (Though I generally disagree with including submitted manuscripts, there might be a place for it when one can demonstrate super-productive involvement and has a proven pattern of acceptance):
Abridged bibliography in the following format:
Shortened Title; Shortened Journal/Book; Pubmed ID/Location/Status.
1st Author:
TSUP; BBA; PMID 22192777
Rhodopsin Superfamily; Nature; Submitted
Efflux Proteins: Microbial Efflux Pumps; Horizon Scientific Press; Accepted
Lead and Mercury Transporters (2 articles); Encycl. of Metalloproteins; ISBN 978-1-4614-1532-9 Jan. '13
MFS; FEBS J; PMID 22458847
2nd Author:
PTS; ELS; Search PTS on
www.els.net
Transp. Protein Evol.; Protein Families; Accepted
4-JC; BBA; Submitted
ABC; JMB; Submitted
Co-author:
Phylogenetic char.; JMMB; PMID 22286036
APC; JMMB; PMID 22627175
Transposons; Mutagenesis; Accepted
Mer; WASP; Accepted
In case you have related Abstracts, Podium Presentations, Posters, they could be included in the same space with the pubs. The highest form of sharing a set of data with the world should be the primary listing (Publications, Abstracts, Posters/Presentations), but other venues can still be mentioned in the same space or in the affiliated Research space in precise or vague detail depending on space restraints (And I'd think this particularly important where a manuscript was submitted, but not yet accepted, if you use the format provided above). If you don't keep them hooked together like that, and use a different space instead, it would be far to difficult for a reader to keep them all straight for a highly-productive researcher.
Keep in mind that there's no one right way to do this. Personally, I feel this is so compact it makes my eyes bleed trying to sort out the entries. You might come up with a efficient, but more readable and informative format than the one provided (in which case, I'd love your permission to use it as another example, if you'd be so kind as to post an anonymized version).
Also, read post #2, item 20 on the first page of this thread for more ideas to streamline things.