I am very interested in continuing education on one of Medical schools abroad. I am right now enrolling for IB and I want to have all three science subjects (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) and also maths, all of them on HL. This was done by my brother before and he did the diploma with all points. So it requires a lot of extra work, but I am willing to do it. So I convinced the school to support me, but they said I had to find a medical school that requires three sciences, so they could present that as an argument to the IB.
I heard that in other countries they just ask IB and they usually get confirmed, and that was also the case with my brother, but they say things changed in last 10 years.
So if anyone knows or has experience with that some infos would be appreciated.

I am a 5th year PhD student, and I have been writing scientific papers for conferences for a few years now.
One constant in the feedback that we get from reviewers is what I call, for lack of a better definition, the “you didn’t consider this” comment.

I am working on an emerging technology, let’s call it E, that has certain advantages with respect to the industry standard, let’s call it S.
E has of course its disadvantages too, and my job as a researcher is trying to address the major shortcomings, let’s call them E.a, E.b, E.c, and E.d.

The problem that I am facing is that, when I write a paper addressing E.a, a common feedback that I get is “you have good results, but what about E.b? There is no way this is going to work when you consider E.c and E.d as well”.

While I understand the concern of the reviewers, I am also frustrated by the fact that a paper is rejected not because my work on E.a is poor, but because there is a lack of research and solutions to address E.b, E.c, and E.d.
Moreover, I don’t know how to improve a paper that was rejected based on those reviews, because they are not specific about the content of the paper.

My question is: how can I present my work in a way that makes it clear that only E.a is addressed, and minimize the chances of getting those unhelpful reviews? Is it possible to be explicit about it without being unbecoming?

A few notes:

  1. I am concerned about conferences, so paper are limited to 4 to 8 pages, and this limits the amount of background that can be covered in the introduction,
  2. Because I am addressing an emerging technology, I usually have at least one page introducing the basic principles of it before moving on to my contribution on E.a,
  3. I do mentioned E.b, E.c, and E.d and cite relevant research in that regard.

Is that possible by this simple tricks may be in future
i.e. by creating an artificial waves in earth in opposite direction of earth quake….This comes in my mind today while i was watching a scary earthquake type movie.Because I am a science student also and I read that if two waves travels in opposite direction with less or equal frequency it will superimpose each other and can nullify the energy.
In future, I will try to work on it to save more people and our diversity.

So my situation goes like this : I happened to land upon a significant discovery in my lab In a very field very hot right now. My bosses are awesome and we send our findings to a ~20 impact factor journal as a rapid communication. Journal review comes back 3 weeks back, reviews are favorable. 2 of 3 reviewers just commended work and did not ask anything and third one asked to show extra proof. I do some extra experiments for revision of article and we send it back this week. I think we satisfactory answered all reviewers questions.

The day we send it back we hear of a similar paper published in a different but very famous journal by a well known scientist of that field. While his work is much deeper than our rapid communication in one cancer , ours is more broad and applicable to more cancers than his work (that’s why rapid communication as we had hoped we could build upon the work) We also show a very different mechanism that his lab didn’t. It’s a question of two different labs landing upon a similar discovery simultaneously. Now my paper is still under review by that top journal. How will his publication this week affect my chances of getting accepted by this journal?
Time line is this:

my article submission: Feb 20 2018
My revision submission : Mar20 2018

Similar paper submitted : October 2017
Similar paper gets accepted : Feb 18 2018
Similar paper gets published: Mar 20 2018

I am pretty sure if he hadn’t published, our paper would have very likely got accepted because it’s a big discovery. But now that he has, I am feeling all the jitters, nightmares etc. it’s literally two years of my day and night hard work that has gone in this work. Just super concerned.
I am not a PhD, just an MD. So I am unaware of how these situations are handled in biomedical scientific publishing.

I am just another post doc in a US university. So my situation goes like this : I happened to land upon a significant discovery in my lab In a very field very hot right now. My bosses are awesome and we send our findings to a ~20 impact factor journal as a rapid communication. Journal review comes back 3 weeks back, reviews are favorable. 2 of 3 reviewers just commended work and did not ask anything and third one asked to show extra proof. I do some extra experiments for revision of article and we send it back this week . I think we satisfactory answered all reviewers
questions.

The day we send it back we hear of a similar paper published in a different but very famous journal by a well known scientist of that field. While his work is much deeper than our rapid communication in one cancer , ours is more broad and applicable to more cancers than his work (that’s why rapid communication as we had hoped we could build upon the work) We also show a very different mechanism that his lab didn’t. It’s a question of two different labs landing upon a similar discovery simultaneously. Now my paper is still under review by that top journal. How will his publication this week affect my chances of getting accepted by this journal?
Time line is this:

my article submission: Feb 20 2018
My revision submission : Mar20 2018

Similar paper submitted : October 2017
Similar paper gets accepted : Feb 18 2018
Similar paper gets published: Mar 20 2018

I am pretty sure if he hadn’t published, our paper would have very likely got accepted because it’s a big discovery. But now that he has, I am feeling all the jitters, nightmares etc. it’s literally two years of my day and night hard work that has gone in this work. Just super concerned.
I am not a PhD, just an MD. So I am unaware of how these situations are handled in biomedical scientific publishing. Please give me hope.