"Super-publishers": Where do they go for internship?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

According to the APPIC survey data, about 1.3% of survey respondents (n=29) had 10+ peer-reviewed journal publications (accepted or published) when they applied for internship. Assuming that the 2228 who answered this survey question were representative of the 4199 applicants as a whole, roughly 58 people applied with 10+ peer-reviewed publications. My question is, where do these "super publishers" match? It seems like anyone with that level of publications at internship app time is very likely going the research / academic route and may even be at a disadvantage at less research-oriented internship sites (which, let's face it, is most of them, as internship is a primarily clinical year/focus) just because they seem so research-focused. Of course, one can have excellent qualifications in both publications and clinical work, but my guess would be that having 10+ publications on your APPIC app definitely sticks out to sites as an indication of great interest in research, regardless.

Any idea, anecdotal or otherwise, where these "super publishers" tend to end up matching?

Brown and possibly MUSC/Charleston Consortium would be two of my top guesses, based on personal anecdotes. In the south, Jackson (MS) also tends to get a fair amount of research-focused individuals for internship.

Academy programs. A scattering of others known to place a premium on research training (Yale, UCSD, UCSF, UF Health Sciences, Duke, UAB, U Chicago, assorted VAs). Obviously like anything else it varies by interests/match. The above are all places I'm at least going to be checking out, but not all have relevant tracks for people in other areas (e.g. child).

I'd just look at where research-y people in your program typically go - there's nothing magical about 10. I've seen folks with ~5 match to the above places, and folks with >10 struggle and/or land at places you certainly wouldn't think of as research-oriented. An F31 is probably equivalent to at least a couple first-author pubs in decent journals. 5 Abnormal/JCCP pubs would likely trump a dozen in mid-tier journals. Cranking out a dozen pubs that are all surveys of undergrads is not going to be viewed the same as cranking out a dozen fully powered clinical trials or laboratory-based experimental studies. There's a great deal of noise in the system.

A good bet would be internship sites that are members of the Academy of Psychological Clinical Science. The list from their website http://acadpsychclinicalscience.org/...?page=members:

Clinical Science Internship Programs
Boston Consortium in Clinical Psychology
Brown University Medical School Consortium
University of Illinois at Chicago, Department of Psychiatry
Palo Alto VA Center
Medical University of South Carolina
Minneapolis VA Medical Center
VA Maryland Health Care System /University of Maryland Internship Consortium
University of Washington School of Medicine
Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine

I'm one of those 10+. I interviewed chiefly at some of the places described above. My experience was that the same people typically interview at those sites (about a group of 40+). I matched at one of them, though lower than I expected with my ranking, probably because with a smaller pool of applicants comes an even smaller pool of available spots.

Interestingly, I had some "backup" sites that I applied to that weren't so research heavy. Didn't get a single invite from any of them.

I'm trying to figure out what kind of internships I want even though I won't be applying for another year (I could, but I've decided to delay it). I think maybe a clinically-oriented internship with protected research time would probably be best for me since I don't consider myself an "R1" type researcher and I could also get training with the populations and disorders that interest me clinically. Although I may apply to Brown and Duke for funsies because they have some awesome clinical training opportunities, and then the research is just a huge bonus.

There are many internships that are more clinically focused but still have protected research time. I always knew I was on the academic path, though I don't think I had 10 pubs at the time of internship application. That said, I wanted to pursue a more clinically focused internship because I figured it would be my last chance to widen my clinical experience and get some good supervision before pursuing an academic job.

I applied to some of the "research-y" internships (Brown, MUSC, University of Washington, Western Psych, Duke), and a bunch of VAs (Jesse Brown in Chicago, Southwest Consortium in Albuquerque, Puget Sound VA, Pittsburgh VA, Portland VA, Salem VA). I ended up matching in the latter group (my top three ranked sites were all in the latter group, for the reasons described), despite having no prior VA experience. I ended up with a full day of protected research time for the first chunk of the year, and half a day later in the year.

Great question! Thanks to those who have replied so far, this is very helpful. (Hoping to hit 10 within a year or so and really want to start zeroing in on sites that will respect my love for research and understand that my productivity in that domain doesn't mean I will be an awful clinician.) I wish more Internship sites would get on board with a clinical science perspective.

Originally Posted by Member6523

I'm one of those 10+. I interviewed chiefly at some of the places described above. My experience was that the same people typically interview at those sites (about a group of 40+). I matched at one of them, though lower than I expected with my ranking, probably because with a smaller pool of applicants comes an even smaller pool of available spots.

Interestingly, I had some "backup" sites that I applied to that weren't so research heavy. Didn't get a single invite from any of them.

This is what I wonder about--it feels like the ultra-research-y people may even be more limited in their site choices because they are seen as *so* research-oriented.

I applied to some of the "research-y" internships (Brown, MUSC, University of Washington, Western Psych, Duke), and a bunch of VAs (Jesse Brown in Chicago, Southwest Consortium in Albuquerque, Puget Sound VA, Pittsburgh VA, Portland VA, Salem VA). I ended up matching in the latter group (my top three ranked sites were all in the latter group, for the reasons described), despite having no prior VA experience. I ended up with a full day of protected research time for the first chunk of the year, and half a day later in the year.

One of my professors in undergrad did his internship + post-doc at one of those VA's, and it seems to have served him really well in terms of publications (now tenured faculty at a non-R1 with a clinical PhD program). I think he had 4-5 pubs going in and came of post-doc with another 2-3, with a couple more in the pipeline.

I'd just look at where research-y people in your program typically go - there's nothing magical about 10. I've seen folks with ~5 match to the above places, and folks with >10 struggle and/or land at places you certainly wouldn't think of as research-oriented. An F31 is probably equivalent to at least a couple first-author pubs in decent journals. 5 Abnormal/JCCP pubs would likely trump a dozen in mid-tier journals. Cranking out a dozen pubs that are all surveys of undergrads is not going to be viewed the same as cranking out a dozen fully powered clinical trials or laboratory-based experimental studies. There's a great deal of noise in the system.

Good point, though I'd like to point out that 5 pubs still places you in the top 8% of internship applicants in terms of journal pubs, so you're still looking at relatively small subset (about 350 applicants last year had 5 or more pubs if the APPIC survey-responders are indeed representative of the pool as a whole). I also think the journal rep can really vary by area of research. At rehab-oriented internships, for example, pubs in Rehab Psych probably are viewed more favorably that they would be at a UCC.

I've only personally known two applicants with a high (more than 2 or 3) number of pubs--one with about 5 and one who will have 20+ (already has about 15 or more with several more submitted). The 5+ person matched at UCSF (though it took them multiple cycles, interestingly). Surprisingly, the 20+ pub person is strongly considering going outside of the APPIC/APA match for internship.

Awesome thread! I am starting a Counseling Psyc PhD program in the fall and consider myself very research oriented. If you are interested in a research professorship, with minimal clinical focus, what kind of internships are available? Are the clinical science internships geared toward Clinical Psych PhD???

And my second question is …. as of late I have been having noticing my dislike for counseling/therapy. I am pursuing a Counseling Psyc PhD because my research interest fit so well within and I am interested in the how/what/why people do/think/believe. But this is more on social,structural,etc kind of way, not individual. Although one side can definitely reflect the other. I am just thinking about getting through the next four years knowing that my clinical interests are minimal. One of the only reasons I can see myself enjoying clinical stufff is being that it can give me research ideas, motivations, etc and also counseling theories themselves are interesting. What to do?

Sorry to derail the thread.

ZsMusings: I'm not big on therapy, either. It's definitely difficult to get through a more therapy-oriented program (like mine is) when you are more interested in research, but it's possible.

Originally Posted by ZsMusings

Awesome thread! I am starting a Counseling Psyc PhD program in the fall and consider myself very research oriented. If you are interested in a research professorship, with minimal clinical focus, what kind of internships are available? Are the clinical science internships geared toward Clinical Psych PhD???

And my second question is …. as of late I have been having noticing my dislike for counseling/therapy. I am pursuing a Counseling Psyc PhD because my research interest fit so well within and I am interested in the how/what/why people do/think/believe. But this is more on social,structural,etc kind of way, not individual. Although one side can definitely reflect the other. I am just thinking about getting through the next four years knowing that my clinical interests are minimal. One of the only reasons I can see myself enjoying clinical stufff is being that it can give me research ideas, motivations, etc and also counseling theories themselves are interesting. What to do?

I can, also, totally relate, as I am more interested in research but my fit was overall better in counseling psych (based on my past experience). I've been wondering this myself--i.e., where do research-focused counseling psych scholars go? I've noticed that counseling psych students can be very practice-oriented. For example, is it academia or bust for us? Or are there other research-oriented places for counseling psych scholars (hospitals, etc.)? Hmmmmm....

I must say I am biased because it is where I went for internship, but if you are research-focused and interested in geropsychology I recommend looking at the Gero Research track at Baylor College of Medicine. The other Baylor tracks are not particularly research-focused, but the gero track gives you 50% research time and the opportunity to work on several large clinical trials. It is heaven for someone like me.

Originally Posted by cara susanna

ZsMusings: I'm not big on therapy, either. It's definitely difficult to get through a more therapy-oriented program (like mine is) when you are more interested in research, but it's possible.

Thanks cara susanna. I'm curious if you could tell me about your experience in your program? Did you come in knowing that? What strategies have been helpful in achieving your goals while everyone may be choosing different paths? Etc.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Psychadelic2012

I can, also, totally relate, as I am more interested in research but my fit was overall better in counseling psych (based on my past experience). I've been wondering this myself--i.e., where do research-focused counseling psych scholars go? I've noticed that counseling psych students can be very practice-oriented. For example, is it academia or bust for us? Or are there other research-oriented places for counseling psych scholars (hospitals, etc.)? Hmmmmm....

Yea I def agree! Great questions.. wondering what the answers would be.

And I wonder if its the counseling in counseling psychology's name just adds to the field attracting more practice oriented people...

Originally Posted by ZsMusings

Thanks cara susanna. I'm curious if you could tell me about your experience in your program? Did you come in knowing that? What strategies have been helpful in achieving your goals while everyone may be choosing different paths? Etc.

Thanks!

I did not, I thought I'd want to do clinical work with a little research on the side, which is why I applied to clinically-oriented PhD programs.

I've just been as involved in research as I can, working with several different faculty members and trying to collaborate with people as much as possible. I'm also getting teaching experience so I can apply for faculty jobs. It makes me very busy, but I kind of thrive on having a lot going on at once. I was also lucky to get a placement next year that will have some really good experience for people who want to go into academia, so that helps.

But whenever I am at 100% clinical work place, I'm not really happy. I think it's good to know that about myself, however.

Originally Posted by ZsMusings

And I wonder if its the counseling in counseling psychology's name just adds to the field attracting more practice oriented people...

I do know that much of it is due to the fact that counseling psych PhD programs are more likely than clinical psych programs to accept applicants with a masters degree--hence, more practical clinical experience/training coming in.

There are a good number of counseling center internships with reserved research time and resources for doing research.

Originally Posted by MCParent

There are a good number of counseling center internships with reserved research time and resources for doing research.

Ooooooh! Goodie!

Hope this isn't too far afield, but for purposes of the match, would one "count" peer-reviewed pubs that are interdisciplinary or in social sciences other than psych?

Depends what you mean. They would certainly "count" in the APPIC statistics as it doesn't specify where they were published. If you are asking how internship sites would look at them, that's going to be very situation-specific. Someone who published 5 sociology papers on stigma and mental health in minority groups applying to internships focused on that area - I imagine that could look very good. Publications irrelevant to psychology...probably less so (though might be unique and help someone stand out).

Originally Posted by Ollie123

Depends what you mean. They would certainly "count" in the APPIC statistics as it doesn't specify where they were published. If you are asking how internship sites would look at them, that's going to be very situation-specific. Someone who published 5 sociology papers on stigma and mental health in minority groups applying to internships focused on that area - I imagine that could look very good. Publications irrelevant to psychology...probably less so (though might be unique and help someone stand out).

That was my hunch. Thanks, Ollie.

As others have mentioned, this is very site-specific. Some of the more competitive AMC internships will not only want to see relevant pubs, but they will also want to see that you have gotten funding. Yes, even though you are only there for a year, they seem to like to bring folks in who know their way around when it comes to research and funding. I was on practicum a few years back at a really competitive site when they were going through internship applications. I heard that all CVs without any funding on them were axed first round.

Probably comes in handy for them as they may be able to groom some post-doc or faculty-to-be types for the future at this stage, and may even get you to do extra work while on your internship. Internship was the first time that job prospects and networking seemed quite real for me, and I still am in contact with people from my internship site even though I left almost two years ago.

Edit: It is also a time that you could feasibly write and get funding for a supplement grant on a larger grant, or write an F series grant to create a postdoc there.

Well, that counts me out! Heh.

I don't think Mass General Hospital has been mentioned yet....

Great thread!

What about people who are not "super-publishers" but still fairly productive? I considered my research track record pretty solid until reading this thread about super-publishers. I will have 4 first author pubs, 1 third author pub, 2 book chapters, and 1 F31 NRSA when I apply this year for internship. Would you all think that I would be a good candidate for the sites you have mentioned (e.g., U of Washington, Palo Alto VA, Western Psych, etc.)?

What are some sites that aren't necessarily top tier research internships but still prefer people with a strong research focus over more clinically-oriented folks?

Originally Posted by ilikepsych

Great thread!

What about people who are not "super-publishers" but still fairly productive? I considered my research track record pretty solid until reading this thread about super-publishers. I will have 4 first author pubs, 1 third author pub, 2 book chapters, and 1 F31 NRSA when I apply this year for internship. Would you all think that I would be a good candidate for the sites you have mentioned (e.g., U of Washington, Palo Alto VA, Western Psych, etc.)?

What are some sites that aren't necessarily top tier research internships but still prefer people with a strong research focus over more clinically-oriented folks?

The F31 should help substantially (huge congrats--very impressive!), and four first authors is great, too, of course. FWIW, I think you would be quite competitive at research-oriented sites.

Originally Posted by ilikepsych

Great thread!

What about people who are not "super-publishers" but still fairly productive? I considered my research track record pretty solid until reading this thread about super-publishers. I will have 4 first author pubs, 1 third author pub, 2 book chapters, and 1 F31 NRSA when I apply this year for internship. Would you all think that I would be a good candidate for the sites you have mentioned (e.g., U of Washington, Palo Alto VA, Western Psych, etc.)?

What are some sites that aren't necessarily top tier research internships but still prefer people with a strong research focus over more clinically-oriented folks?

I'm not a super-publisher myself, but your stats certainly sound as though they'd at least be competitive at those sites; 4 first-authored pubs is nothing to sneeze at, particularly depending on what journals they're in. The F31 obviously isn't going to hurt, either. I say apply and see what happens.

As for other sites, given that I'm not planning on going the academic/tenure-track route myself, my suggestions have all already been mentioned above and thus I'm tapped out. I politely bow out to more-informed responders. I would mention the U. of Miss. Medical Center/Jackson site again, though; it's a great site, but doesn't generally receive a staggering number of apps based solely on its location. UAB might fall into that category as well, although people are probably a bit less frightened off by Birmingham than Jackson.

Originally Posted by ilikepsych

Great thread!

What about people who are not "super-publishers" but still fairly productive? I considered my research track record pretty solid until reading this thread about super-publishers. I will have 4 first author pubs, 1 third author pub, 2 book chapters, and 1 F31 NRSA when I apply this year for internship. Would you all think that I would be a good candidate for the sites you have mentioned (e.g., U of Washington, Palo Alto VA, Western Psych, etc.)?

What are some sites that aren't necessarily top tier research internships but still prefer people with a strong research focus over more clinically-oriented folks?

You will be fine at any top-tier research-oriented site, including the ones you mentioned, and more competitive than applicants with more publications but no record of funding. No need to consider non-top-tier research sites unless you want to. An NRSA or NSF counts for a lot (and continues to count for a lot for F32 and K award applications).

What about people with 5-10 publications and no funding history, or only internal funding? Would they be competitive at first or non-top-tier rewsearch sites, or both? Also, is internal better than no funding? The MUSC one would be perfect for me so I'm specifically wondering about that one, too.

Also, what are some non-top-tier research internships? Are those the clinical ones that allow research time or something different?

Sorry, the above post kind of freaked me out because I don't have any funding yet and I'm guessing if I get any it will be internal. So now I need ego support.

Originally Posted by cara susanna

What about people with 5-10 publications and no funding history, or only internal funding? Would they be competitive at first or non-top-tier rewsearch sites, or both? Also, is internal better than no funding? The MUSC one would be perfect for me so I'm specifically wondering about that one, too.

Also, what are some non-top-tier research internships? Are those the clinical ones that allow research time or something different?

Sorry, the above post kind of freaked me out because I don't have any funding yet and I'm guessing if I get any it will be internal. So now I need ego support.

I didn't mean to freak you out. I doubt most internship sites care about funding. This particular site was an R1 state school focused on research.Funding makes the world go round at those types of places.

Pubs will be most important for most research sites, I am guessing.

Originally Posted by cara susanna

What about people with 5-10 publications and no funding history, or only internal funding? Would they be competitive at first or non-top-tier rewsearch sites, or both? Also, is internal better than no funding? The MUSC one would be perfect for me so I'm specifically wondering about that one, too.

Also, what are some non-top-tier research internships? Are those the clinical ones that allow research time or something different?

Sorry, the above post kind of freaked me out because I don't have any funding yet and I'm guessing if I get any it will be internal. So now I need ego support.

It's obviously completely anecdotal, but I received an interview offer from MUSC, and (as I mentioned above), I'm certainly no super publisher. I have a small handful of pubs (first- and other-authored) to my name and no grants, but I did have a fairly large variety of clinical experiences to go along with our program's positive relationship with the site.

But yeah, I'd say you'd be quite competitive for MUSC or most/all other places you'd apply.

Thanks, guys! That makes me feel better.

I had 11.

It has been a while, but I had interviews at:

Brown
University of Chicago
University of North Carolina
Emory
MUSC
Dartmouth
Kennedy Krieger (long story, but great pediatric neuro site)
University of Miami
University of Oklahoma

I am missing a few, but I can't remember. edit: Tulane was another.

I think there are a bunch of good sites.

Others I would consider:

University of Illinois at Chicago
Northwestern
University of Florida
Rush University
Palo Alto VA
University of Arizona
Yale
Medical College of Wisconsin


There are many other great sites I did not mention. I know going into the process that I didn't apply to all of the ones I should have. The sites do change over time and some that were great may not be quite as good as they used to be and the converse of that is also true. I wouldn't be so concerned with research rotations. If you have 10+ pubs or several 1st and an NRSA, you can survive a year without research and the internship year IS a clinical year. What I would worry about is name recognition, networking, and postdoctoral opportunities. So, you go somewhere where there is powerhouse research going on and maybe make some connections on internship to those groups and get a postdoc out of it.

Originally Posted by futureapppsy2

According to the APPIC survey data, about 1.3% of survey respondents (n=29) had 10+ peer-reviewed journal publications (accepted or published) when they applied for internship. Assuming that the 2228 who answered this survey question were representative of the 4199 applicants as a whole, roughly 58 people applied with 10+ peer-reviewed publications. My question is, where do these "super publishers" match? It seems like anyone with that level of publications at internship app time is very likely going the research / academic route and may even be at a disadvantage at less research-oriented internship sites (which, let's face it, is most of them, as internship is a primarily clinical year/focus) just because they seem so research-focused. Of course, one can have excellent qualifications in both publications and clinical work, but my guess would be that having 10+ publications on your APPIC app definitely sticks out to sites as an indication of great interest in research, regardless.

Any idea, anecdotal or otherwise, where these "super publishers" tend to end up matching?

I disagree with the bold portion of the statement above.

I doubt these super-publishers have less clinical exp. than their peers, if anything their tenacity would imply they have more experience. Professors have told me that pubs are generally the only thing that help you to stand above the rest of the applicants, especially in the real-world when it comes time to get jobs.

Now I understand that what you are saying is that people picking applicants would view these people in a different light, but....I just cannot see it being negative. And then what are you left with, "Oh this kid works twice as hard as his fellow students, let's take them".

I mean come on. If a magical fairy came through your window and offered to put 5 extra publication on your CV, would you say "Oh no fairy pub mother this would make me look to researchy and then the intern site won't take me!" Pshhh dream on.

Where do these kids go? Wherever the hell they want. Because they worked towards it from day 1, probably publishing in areas relevant to the intern site.

Originally Posted by thepug

I disagree with the bold portion of the statement above.

I doubt these super-publishers have less clinical exp. than their peers, if anything their tenacity would imply they have more experience. Professors have told me that pubs are generally the only thing that help you to stand above the rest of the applicants, especially in the real-world when it comes time to get jobs.

Now I understand that what you are saying is that people picking applicants would view these people in a different light, but....I just cannot see it being negative. And then what are you left with, "Oh this kid works twice as hard as his fellow students, let's take them".

I mean come on. If a magical fairy came through your window and offered to put 5 extra publication on your CV, would you say "Oh no fairy pub mother this would make me look to researchy and then the intern site won't take me!" Pshhh dream on.

Where do these kids go? Wherever the hell they want. Because they worked towards it from day 1, probably publishing in areas relevant to the intern site.

I'm just a first year so I don't really know how internship goes. However, when my advisor (the DCT of my program) was looking at applicants he did decide against a few because of their overemphasis on research and less desire to supervise clinical work. Publications were a big factor for our interviewing process but several people who would better suited working at a clinical science program were excluded. Just my .02 cents.

Originally Posted by Ya Ya

I'm just a first year so I don't really know how internship goes. However, when my advisor (the DCT of my program) was looking at applicants he did decide against a few because of their overemphasis on research and less desire to supervise clinical work. Publications were a big factor for our interviewing process but several people who would better suited working at a clinical science program were excluded. Just my .02 cents.

I'm sure this happens, although it's of course going to depend on the applicant, and could probably be fairly easily discerned based on the CV. If the individual has 10 pubs and a dissertation grant coupled with one or two years' worth of experience at the university clinic and only a small handful of administered assessments, the person has likely chosen to focus primarily on research rather than clinical work. I could then potentially see some of the less research-oriented internship sites foregoing sending an interview offer.

Originally Posted by Ya Ya

I'm just a first year so I don't really know how internship goes. However, when my advisor (the DCT of my program) was looking at applicants he did decide against a few because of their overemphasis on research and less desire to supervise clinical work. Publications were a big factor for our interviewing process but several people who would better suited working at a clinical science program were excluded. Just my .02 cents.

Anecdotal, but I absolutely think its possible that pubs might "narrow your options" a bit. It seems quite common for our students to get interviewed by all the top tier research places ('m at a PCSAS program) and match there, after not getting interviewed by some podunk CMHCs with a mediocre reputation and/or unheard of VA hospitals in the middle of nowhere they applied to because they were local and/or as "safeties". In the grand scheme of things I don't think there is any question that pubs will have a net positive effect, but they also paint an overall picture of who you are and are factored into that elusive "fit" construct.

I am fairly certain it does "narrow" options. I think, actually, it is a group at increased risk for not matching. This is based on anecdotal observation. I know a few people that had many publications who did not match, including myself on the first run, and they had interviews at similar arrays of site. The reason is because it is boom or bust. I know I was told on an interview I talked my way into that I belonged at an academic medical center (this was at a VA). And, I didn't get interviews at anywhere but the well known places. I did apply to several that I thought were a little less ambitious. I think all paths "narrow" options. It's not a bad thing. Oh, and ps, among those people with lots of pubs that didn't match, ALL have very good careers and also ended up at "elite" internships. So, I think it still has a net positive effect.

Um, so does this mean that even if you have good, solid clinical experience, that a high number of pubs could also count against you in certain settings? I mean, why not just leave some pubs off the CV, then?! Sheesh, how ridiculous. It's like how clinical experience can count against someone in a research setting--I've seen it. Shoulda coulda woulda left certain things off the CV so that it didn't "look" too scattered.

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

I am fairly certain it does "narrow" options. I think, actually, it is a group at increased risk for not matching. This is based on anecdotal observation. I know a few people that had many publications who did not match, including myself on the first run, and they had interviews at similar arrays of site. The reason is because it is boom or bust. I know I was told on an interview I talked my way into that I belonged at an academic medical center (this was at a VA). And, I didn't get interviews at anywhere but the well known places. I did apply to several that I thought were a little less ambitious. I think all paths "narrow" options. It's not a bad thing. Oh, and ps, among those people with lots of pubs that didn't match, ALL have very good careers and also ended up at "elite" internships. So, I think it still has a net positive effect.

Yeah, I can see why narrowing options could be a good thing. After all, some of the places who wouldn't see you as a fit, you may be unhappy with the fit too so it may be a blessing in disguise if you don't end up there. Of course, if you don't match anywhere I could see why this would be frustrating.

To take this on a tangent: what makes people super-publishers? Is there a formula for this kind of success? Is it purely work ethic or does opportunity play a role? and is there a way to increase your productivity?

I was a career changer in a completely unrelated field (not a psych major) and more than a decade out of undergrad when I entered grad skool. So my learning curve was huge and it's only now, at the end of my 2nd year, that I feel I "get" the publication process on a macro level. Of course, I made efforts before this and I have a couple of co author things in the pipeline but I feel I'm behind pub-wise where I would like to be. Is it too late to be a super publisher ?

I think it's a combination of opportunity and work style, not necessarily work ethic. In my program, I was the first of my cohort to propose and defend my masters, prelim and dissertation. But, my lab has a history of students that publish lots of papers. There were 2 of us in my lab that graduated together. We both had 10+ pubs and they were not all the same papers.

I think you can see work style play out as you continue through your career and I don't think there is necessarily a right or wrong way to do it. Some labs focus on "big" projects and publish sporadically, yet they publish important papers and are very successful. My approach has always been to have at least 3 projects going and to collaborate heavily. So, I publish frequently (e.g., I had 9 last year). I know people with big labs that have had 30 in one year. I think quantity isn't that important. More important is quality. And, I don't mean necessarily quality journals (though that comes with it), but quality research. Research that makes a meaningful contribution, that other scientists use to support development of an idea, and that answers and creates more questions.

I think as a graduate student, the biggest thing is having data. Use undergrads to run protocols. If you have an idea, write an abstract and a methods section. Get data. Spend a few hours a week in pursuit of data. Have people to help you code things. Present at conferences every year. This will help you form coherent ideas about interpreting your data and serve as templates for papers. This is how labs work later anyways. You hire people to recruit and run subjects and code data. You spend more time creating protocols and writing papers.

It's not too late, I'm staying another year because I am behind on publications and I want more by the time I apply for internship (I am a third year right now). I have four manuscripts under review right now and one was an R&R, so here's hoping. I also didn't understand the publication process until the end of my second year.

Btw, I have been told by a practicum site that I did not get a placement there because I seemed too research-focused. So, yes, it can definitely work against you and that is yet another reason I am terrified for internship.