How do schools see Research if I don't publish a paper?

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

I'm currently entering into my sophomore year, and have been doing research last semester and will do more the upcoming school year. I don't know if I will be able to publish a paper, or anything at all about publishing a paper to be honest, but will medical schools overlook research if you don't publish a paper?

Thanks for all your replies

Originally Posted by iforget2

I'm currently entering into my sophomore year, and have been doing research last semester and will do more the upcoming school year. I don't know if I will be able to publish a paper, or anything at all about publishing a paper to be honest, but will medical schools overlook research if you don't publish a paper?

Thanks for all your replies

No.

They consider research to be worthwhile even if you don't get published. Even most MD/PhD applicants/matriculants aren't published.

Some research is better than none. Of course, Publications are the 'Ultimate' verification of a job-well-done. Personally, I feel like this is a poor indicator of actual research involvement, but more of a 'luck' kind of thing, as it's based on a lot of variables, and in order to get a publication you have to get very luck (right time, right place kind of thing). LizzyM would know more about how the AdComs actually look at these types of research experiences.

But overall, medical schools will certainly not overlook your research experience. In fact, a single summer of full-time research can accumulate more hours and more intensive immersion into research than three full years of concurrent school/research, so that is also a great option if you can sneak into one of those programs. They are very competitive, however. I believe gettheleadout (Patrick Star profile picture) has the thread with the acceptance rates for several programs.

Edit: This (clicky) is the post I was referring to.

Publication in Nature (first author)
3.4 gpa
29 MCAT
normal personality
normal shadowing and volunteering
not urm





Guaranteed acceptance to at least one allopathic school?

Originally Posted by Venom5

Publication in Nature (first author)
3.4 gpa
29 MCAT
normal personality
normal shadowing and volunteering
not urm





Guaranteed acceptance to at least one allopathic school?

Guaranteed?

Not with those stats, or any other stats for that matter. But those are some not-so-high stats. Based on cGPA and MCAT alone, it's looking at a sub-40% acceptance rate for those stats.

But there's a good chance to get accepted somewhere with a very broad application and some killer interviews and some luck.

First author Nature publication to an undergrad? I mean that's very impressive, but how did that happen?

Originally Posted by PreMedOrDead

Guaranteed?

Not with those stats.

But there's a good chance to get accepted somewhere with a very broad application and some killer interviews and some luck.

First author Nature publication to an undergrad? I mean that's very impressive, but how did that happen?

Sexy time with the PI??
















But seriously, it can happen. Especially if you get a PI who WANTS you to succeed and wants to put you as first author on a paper.

Originally Posted by Venom5

Publication in Nature (first author)
3.4 gpa
29 MCAT
normal personality
normal shadowing and volunteering
not urm





Guaranteed acceptance to at least one allopathic school?

I'd say you're on the wrong end of a 50-50 shot.

Originally Posted by Venom5

Sexy time with the PI??

But seriously, it can happen. Especially if you get a PI who WANTS you to succeed and wants to put you as first author on a paper.

I am sure it can happen, but I'm surprised Nature, of all journals, would let that go through. Regardless, must've been a hell of a paper.

But either way, yes there's a good shot that the applicant in this case could get in somewhere, but no one is guaranteed.

I'm glad this PI is so invested in his students, but a < 3.5 GPA and < 30 MCAT doesn't particularly bode well for applicants.

A big thing I could see is even if said person is 'normal' (btw, no one is normal), if thinking a publication in Nature is a guaranteed shot at acceptance, expect the pompous douchebaggery to get some glaring rejections from the AdComs. I watched a person with significant research experience interview once, and he sounded like a drone. I mean, yeah, we like to hear about your excellent, cutting-edge research, but seriously, we don't care about your results. What did you get out of it, personally? You're going to medical school first and foremost to be a physician, especially at lower tier schools.

Again, grain of salt etc., I am not an AdCom.

Originally Posted by MedPR

I'd say you're on the wrong end of a 50-50 shot.

Yeah. I think a pub amplifies the effect of a great application maybe? Like if your total application score was x, a pub would = x^(1.1) or something.

Originally Posted by PreMedOrDead

I am sure it can happen, but I'm surprised Nature, of all journals, would let that go through. Regardless, must've been a hell of a paper.

But either way, yes there's a good shot that the applicant in this case could get in somewhere, but no one is guaranteed.

I'm glad this PI is so invested in his students, but a < 3.5 GPA and < 30 MCAT doesn't particularly bode well for applicants.

A big thing I could see is even if said person is 'normal' (btw, no one is normal), if thinking a publication in Nature is a guaranteed shot at acceptance, expect the pompous douchebaggery to get some glaring rejections from the AdComs. I watched a person with significant research experience interview once, and it sounded like a drone. I mean, yeah, we like to hear about your excellent, cutting-edge research, but seriously, we don't care about your results. What did you get out of it, personally? You're going to medical school first and foremost to be a physician, especially at lower tier schools.

What? Nature, like most other journals, publishes on the basis of the importance of the discovery and the depth of investigation. If a two year old cured breast cancer and submitted it to nature, I'm pretty sure he would get published.

And I think it's possible for someone to overestimate the power of publications to carry them into medical school without them being a complete douchebag....


When did you watch this person interview? Was it a medical school interview?

Originally Posted by Venom5

Yeah. I think a pub amplifies the effect of a great application maybe? Like if your total application score was x, a pub would = x^(1.1) or something.

Publications are generally what separate top applicants, not bottom applicants. At least that is what I have been told since day one.

Something along the lines of
MCAT > GPA > ECs > LoR/PS > Publications

Upper-tier applicants all have similar stats (within a standard of deviation), all have great extracurriculars, they also have excellent LoR/PSs, but very, very few people get Publications. Since many top-tier schools are research oriented, getting a publication may just put that applicant 'over the top' over applicants whose only difference maker is that they don't have a publication from their research.

Pretty much, at the lower tiers, since MCAT and GPA are the best indicators of Medical School success, they want to make sure their attrition rates don't fall through.

The thing is, Nature is very high impact, so it would be a very rare thing for an AdCom to approach at this angle, but I would still doubt it will push an applicant much higher on their list.

Originally Posted by Venom5

What? Nature, like most other journals, publishes on the basis of the importance of the discovery and the depth of investigation. If a two year old cured breast cancer and submitted it to nature, I'm pretty sure he would get published.

And I think it's possible for someone to overestimate the power of publications to carry them into medical school without them being a complete douchebag....

When did you watch this person interview? Was it a medical school interview?

Sorry, didn't mean to make this personal. I'm saying that those really invested in something tend to overestimate and overemphasize their involvement when it comes to presenting themselves. This gives off the impression that they are a pompous, pretentious douchebag. I am simply stressing this point so that others don't make this mistake and assume that their research is so important it can do the work for them when it comes to application and interview time. It would be a horrible mistake.

Yes, I watched them interview, and it was a medical school interview. It was awful, cringe-worthy even.

I would argue that improving that MCAT by a single point and increasing that GPA by a tenth of a point would result in a much smoother cycle for an applicant than getting a publication in Nature. Though, digging through their family history to find out they're URM would probably be most efficient.

I know poster presentations aren't considered as highly as a publication would, but let's say being a first author in a publication ranks 10 on a 1-10 scale of how undergrad research is viewed, what would you rank a poster presentation? Are they still pretty important?

Originally Posted by Venom5

Publication in Nature (first author)
3.4 gpa
29 MCAT
normal personality
normal shadowing and volunteering
not urm





Guaranteed acceptance to at least one allopathic school?

I'd say yes as long as you didn't live in cali or a state without a school.

If you lived in ohio, new york, or texas. You'd be in for sure.

Originally Posted by Venom5

Yeah. I think a pub amplifies the effect of a great application maybe? Like if your total application score was x, a pub would = x^(1.1) or something.

Originally Posted by PreMedOrDead

Publications are generally what separate top applicants, not bottom applicants. At least that is what I have been told since day one.

Something along the lines of
MCAT > GPA > ECs > LoR/PS > Publications

+1, except GPA > MCAT > ECs = LOR > PS. Pubs are included in ECs.

Originally Posted by PreMedOrDead

Publications are generally what separate top applicants, not bottom applicants. At least that is what I have been told since day one.

Something along the lines of
MCAT > GPA > ECs > LoR/PS > Publications

I always thought that publications held more bearing than that.... maybe lizzym or another adcom can clarify?

Originally Posted by PreMedOrDead

Upper-tier applicants all have similar stats (within a standard of deviation), all have great extracurriculars, they also have excellent LoR/PSs, but very, very few people get Publications. Since many top-tier schools are research oriented, getting a publication may just put that applicant 'over the top' over applicants whose only difference maker is that they don't have a publication from their research.

Pretty much, at the lower tiers, since MCAT and GPA are the best indicators of Medical School success, they want to make sure their attrition rates don't fall through.

Yeah.... I agree with you here. Perhaps it isn't based on the tier, but on the amount of funding is allocated to research within a school.

Originally Posted by PreMedOrDead

The thing is, Nature is very high impact, so it would be a very rare thing for an AdCom to approach at this angle, but I would still doubt it will push an applicant much higher on their list.



Sorry, didn't mean to make this personal. I'm saying that those really invested in something tend to overestimate and overemphasize their involvement when it comes to presenting themselves. This gives off the impression that they are a pompous, pretentious douchebag. I am simply stressing this point so that others don't make this mistake and assume that their research is so important it can do the work for them when it comes to application and interview time. It would be a horrible mistake.

I didn't take it personally. You never know... im sure once in a blue moon a very talented undergraduate researcher comes along and really does do the amount of work and background studying to produce a great publication. But I also think that there are in fact a lot of douchebag premeds who inflate their application so much that it pops in front of adcoms.

Originally Posted by PreMedOrDead

Yes, I watched them interview, and it was a medical school interview. It was awful, cringe-worthy even.

I would argue that improving that MCAT by a single point and increasing that GPA by a tenth of a point would result in a much smoother cycle for an applicant than getting a publication in Nature.

I bet it was...


And is a 31 and 3.8 really better than a 30, 3.7, and a publication in nature?

Originally Posted by Venom5

Sexy time with the PI??


But seriously, it can happen. Especially if you get a PI who WANTS you to succeed and wants to put you as first author on a paper.

Mine just gripped about how medicine takes his brightest students and how we should consider the fullfilling career as a PI


He's probably going to leave me off the pub. Whatever.

Originally Posted by iforget2

I know poster presentations aren't considered as highly as a publication would, but let's say being a first author in a publication ranks 10 on a 1-10 scale of how undergrad research is viewed, what would you rank a poster presentation? Are they still pretty important?

This is where I would get much less specific. I haven't seen people dabble in thing such as this because it varies so much from school to school. Personally, if I were a lower tier that pumps out practicing physicians, I would view lecture presentations and poster presentations higher than publications, as it demonstrates the ability for an applicant to be social, interact with others, and most importantly teach rather than tell. Now, for upper tier institutions that are research and academically focused, I feel like papers (and publications) would be more emphasized, as this demonstrates the ability of an applicant to predict, conduct, understand and document their active research.

Overall, I have noted that Publication > Presentation > Poster > Research alone.

TL;DR - It varies, sorry that's not helpful at all.

Originally Posted by Holy FranZ

Mine just gripped about how medicine takes his brightest students and how we should consider the fullfilling career as a PI


He's probably going to leave me off the pub. Whatever.

Lol he sounds like an old, bitter professor who hasn't published anything in 5 years.

Who cares, you are going to be a doctor at any rate right? Dr. Franz.

Originally Posted by Venom5

Lol he sounds like an old, bitter professor who hasn't published anything in 5 years.

Who cares, you are going to be a doctor at any rate right? Dr. Franz.

He does publish, but it was a smaller lab that did 3 completely different projects. So 1-2 would get more attention than the 3rd (which happened to me mine).

yeah, but it sucks sometimes. I feel like my current state of 0 pubs will come back to get me. It puts more pressure on me to find the right opportunity in med school to make it happen.

Originally Posted by Venom5

I always thought that publications held more bearing than that.... maybe lizzym or another adcom can clarify?

Drop LizzyM with a message linking to this thread, I would be interested in her food for thought on this topic, particularly most post regarding upper/mid/lower tiers and their focus on the 'success' of research. I currently have two summers of full-time research with several presentations (poster and lecture) but no publications.

Originally Posted by Venom5

Yeah.... I agree with you here. Perhaps it isn't based on the tier, but on the amount of funding is allocated to research within a school.

For the most part, the upper tier schools receive much more research funding. This is a fair generalization that I made in describing the topic at hand.

Originally Posted by Venom5

I didn't take it personally. You never know... im sure once in a blue moon a very talented undergraduate researcher comes along and really does do the amount of work and background studying to produce a great publication. But I also think that there are in fact a lot of douchebag premeds who inflate their application so much that it pops in front of adcoms.

You are correct, but more often than not this isn't true. I know of students with publications that did nothing but wash dishes and take a PhD student's graphs and make them grayscale for the paper. They got a middle-author publication. She's currently taking a year off after an unsuccessful cycle.

Just make sure to remain level headed, and instead of focusing on the research findings itself, focus on what you've learned, and how it motivates you to become a physician. That's what they want to know. However, if a committee member has experience in the field and presses you for a depth of information regarding the publication, then it would be okay to discuss findings without sounding pretentious.

Originally Posted by Venom5

I bet it was...

The 'gunner' in that one was strong. Never did find out how his cycle ended up.

Originally Posted by Venom5

And is a 31 and 3.8 really better than a 30, 3.7, and a publication in nature?

Now you're altering numbers on me, namely the GPA. Applicants below a 3.5 GPA tend to have very rough application cycles, even when their MCAT looks okay. Additionally, a large disparity between MCAT and GPA can even be a red flag (Did the student not work hard in school? Did the student work so hard they did well in undergrad, but they weren't competent enough for the rigor of the MCAT?).

Now, to simplify, the barrier to admissions often comes around the 28 mark for MCAT and a 3.5 for GPA. Clearly, students get in with below these stats. However, cycles tend to go much more smoothly (or have done so in the past) when applicants score higher than a 30 on their MCAT and have higher than a 3.5 GPA.

In your example of a 31 MCAT and a 3.8 GPA versus a 30 MCAT and a 3.7 GPA with a pub in Nature, you're now comparing two competitive applicants (by my definition). In this case, the publication may push the slightly lower-stat applicant over the other, but this will be decided mostly by the applicant as a whole, the publication will still not decide it on its own.

Edit: Let me note, the vast majority of posts here are from other applicants, do your best to weed out good, biased and awful advice. I, along with you, am not an expert on the application process, but with logic and some reliable information, you can make wise decisions and bolster you application for a successful season. I do my best to give appropriate advice, but even so I am not unbiased nor am I qualified to give representative information regarding the ordeal.

Not to hijack the thread but i have a similar question: At a CC I took a psychology course with an honorary mention because I did a research project under the direction of the honors psychology professor (not the professor for the class). Supposedly it was going to show on my transcript but last i checked its just listed as psychology. I came up with a hypothesis, made surveys, distributed and tabulated them, and wrote out the introduction and discussion part of the paper. The professor then helped me with the abstract, any correlations etc. and although my hypothesis wasn't supported i still of course completed the project. I didn't submit it to any conferences but the psychology professors read it and commented on it etc. Could this be considered research or should I even mention it at all? The report was about 15 pages, and it wasn't a huge deal but I came up with it etc independently. I also had a set time I had to spend with the honor psych professor where we would meet every week for the duration of the semester and I discovered an interesting finding with a strong correlation but at that point I transferred so I didn't expand on it.

Originally Posted by Ashley1989

Not to hijack the thread but i have a similar question: At a CC I took a psychology course with an honorary mention because I did a research project under the direction of the honors psychology professor (not the professor for the class). Supposedly it was going to show on my transcript but last i checked its just listed as psychology. I came up with a hypothesis, made surveys, distributed and tabulated them, and wrote out the introduction and discussion part of the paper. <snip> Could this be considered research or should I even mention it at all?

Yes, you could list this in the experience section as research for x hrs/wk from date to date. People list research done for credit all.the.time.

----------------------------------------------------

Along with clinical experience, demonstrations of altruism, leadership, etc, research experience is taken into account when evaluating applications for a top tier. The justification is that a top tier is interested in developing leaders in academic medicine and that means doing research and evidence that someone may do research in med school, residency, fellowship and eventually as a physician-investigator is having engaged in research as an undergrad. (You can disagree with the logic but this is how adcom members think.) People who have not done research may get interviews if they have had exceptional experiences in another realm.

So, someone may fall in a spectrum between no reserach experience at all, through lab scut puppy (washing dishes, mixing solutions), to hypothesis development and testing (intellectually engaged in research), to sharing of results through presentations and papers.

Originally Posted by LizzyM

Yes, you could list this in the experience section as research for x hrs/wk from date to date. People list research done for credit all.the.time.

----------------------------------------------------

Along with clinical experience, demonstrations of altruism, leadership, etc, research experience is taken into account when evaluating applications for a top tier. The justification is that a top tier is interested in developing leaders in academic medicine and that means doing research and evidence that someone may do research in med school, residency, fellowship and eventually as a physician-investigator is having engaged in research as an undergrad. (You can disagree with the logic but this is how adcom members think.) People who have not done research may get interviews if they have had exceptional experiences in another realm.

So, someone may fall in a spectrum between no reserach experience at all, through lab scut puppy (washing dishes, mixing solutions), to hypothesis development and testing (intellectually engaged in research), to sharing of results through presentations and papers.

So are you saying that research, even if it does not yield a presentation or paper, is still a valuable EC to have for application success? Or, ironically, will it be frowned upon by Adcoms thinking " what meaningful things have you done for the past 2 yrs in the lab then?"

Originally Posted by cgk

So are you saying that research, even if it does not yield a presentation or paper, is still a valuable EC to have for application success? Or, ironically, will it be frowned upon by Adcoms thinking " what meaningful things have you done for the past 2 yrs in the lab then?"

Two years in the lab is valuable. How valuable will depend on what you did. If you never got beyond mixing reagents and stocking shelves, it won't be as valuable as if you got to a point where you were intellectually engaged in the scientific process.

Originally Posted by LizzyM

Two years in the lab is valuable. How valuable will depend on what you did. If you never got beyond mixing reagents and stocking shelves, it won't be as valuable as if you got to a point where you were intellectually engaged in the scientific process.

Are presentations or publications the only indicators that Adcoms use to validate ones intellectual involvement in a 2 yr stint in a lab? Or will just the description of one's involvement, in a lab over 2 yrs, on the AMCAS application be enough to impress Adcoms?

Originally Posted by cgk

Are presentations or publications the only indicators that Adcoms use to validate ones intellectual involvement in a 2 yr stint in a lab? Or will just the description of one's involvement, in a lab over 2 yrs, on the AMCAS application be enough to impress Adcoms?

Description. From what I've seen here, you're best served by reflecting on what you got from the experience as opposed to what you did.

Originally Posted by dmf2682

Description. From what I've seen here, you're best served by reflecting on what you got from the experience as opposed to what you did.

I would disagree. Objectively describing what you did is important. Did you acquire specific technical skills? Did you acquire the ability to describe your research in a way simple enough for a humanities professor to understand (not saying that they are simple-minded, only that they are not scientists. can you use clear language without jargon to describe the purpose of your work?)

You can also add how this served to inform your future career goals. Don't say you didn't like research and would prefer to work with people. Researchers are people. Research is almost always a team endeavor. You could say that you enjoyed the teamwork that went into the work in the lab but you want to be in a position to apply what you learn in the lab to patients under your care or that you are glad to have had the experience so as to be a better consumer of health and science literature as you use the literature to provide better patient care.

Saying only what you got out of it without saying what you did is a poor idea. Some of us judge applicants and interviewees by how well they are able to describe their work to the uninitiated. It is those communication skills that are important in small group learning in med school and with patients, families and more junior members of the team in clinical settings.

Originally Posted by LizzyM

Two years in the lab is valuable. How valuable will depend on what you did. If you never got beyond mixing reagents and stocking shelves, it won't be as valuable as if you got to a point where you were intellectually engaged in the scientific process.

Quick question, Lizzy (if it's not too bothersome)

My research has been mostly doing modelling (i.e. more theoretical, not really messing with reagents or chemicals)... is that still okay? It's definitely part of the hypothesis-testing, but not something very "bench" research-like...

Also, thanks for the detailed response on talking about research experiences!

On this topic and while LizzyM is around, I had a related question: Will multiple publications help an applicant more than a single pub? (assuming that we're talking about primarily top 20 schools).

The reason I ask is because I'll be submitting a clinical paper probably within the month that I'll be second author on. I also have a long term basic science project I've been working on that is finally wrapping up. I've started writing a paper on that as well.

Also, from my experience, publications are a combination of luck and connections.

While many investigators think of research as engagement in a wet lab, there are other types of research and the hierarchy remains the same: doing data entry and other scutwork is at the bottom, engaging itellectually is good, bring the project to its logical conclusion and publicizing the results is highly regarded. I would add that getting outside funding for a project is also a plus.

Originally Posted by Venom5

Publication in Nature (first author)

Originally Posted by LizzyM

Yes, you could list this in the experience section as research for x hrs/wk from date to date. People list research done for credit all.the.time.

----------------------------------------------------

The research I'm currently doing does give me credit, although this credit is doesn't replace any other class. Is your post implying that research done as credit is viewed in a negative sense?

Originally Posted by iforget2

The research I'm currently doing does give me credit, although this credit is doesn't replace any other class. Is your post implying that research done as credit is viewed in a negative sense?

I'm not implying that at all. I'm just making the point that the "Experience" section is not limited to extracurricular activities. Activities that were for credit or part of a class (volunteering in a homeless shelter as required for a sociology class, shadowing done as part of an "exploring the health professions", etc are fine to list in the experience section of your application.

Originally Posted by LizzyM

Yes, you could list this in the experience section as research for x hrs/wk from date to date. People list research done for credit all.the.time.

----------------------------------------------------

Along with clinical experience, demonstrations of altruism, leadership, etc, research experience is taken into account when evaluating applications for a top tier. The justification is that a top tier is interested in developing leaders in academic medicine and that means doing research and evidence that someone may do research in med school, residency, fellowship and eventually as a physician-investigator is having engaged in research as an undergrad. (You can disagree with the logic but this is how adcom members think.) People who have not done research may get interviews if they have had exceptional experiences in another realm.

So, someone may fall in a spectrum between no reserach experience at all, through lab scut puppy (washing dishes, mixing solutions), to hypothesis development and testing (intellectually engaged in research), to sharing of results through presentations and papers.

Thank you so much LizzyM!

Originally Posted by Venom5

Publication in Nature (first author)
3.4 gpa
29 MCAT
normal personality
normal shadowing and volunteering
not urm





Guaranteed acceptance to at least one allopathic school?

just wanted to reiterate, from my personal experience, the pub in nature doesn't make up for the low numbers. i had >>>1 pub in nature or nature level journals and a higher mcat, but a lower gpa. i applied extremely top heavy thinking the research will stand out = insta-rejects from most schools after paying the secondary fee.

Originally Posted by LizzyM

I'm not implying that at all. I'm just making the point that the "Experience" section is not limited to extracurricular activities. Activities that were for credit or part of a class (volunteering in a homeless shelter as required for a sociology class, shadowing done as part of an "exploring the health professions", etc are fine to list in the experience section of your application.

Hi LizzyM. I have a quick question if you've got the time. What about public service as required by your 9-5? Would economic reimbursement be viewed that much different that grade credit reimbursement? I mean it obviously wouldn't be as good as pure volunteerism, but is there any thoughts in the adcom circles that "public service is public service"?

Originally Posted by LizzyM

I would disagree. Objectively describing what you did is important. Did you acquire specific technical skills? Did you acquire the ability to describe your research in a way simple enough for a humanities professor to understand (not saying that they are simple-minded, only that they are not scientists. can you use clear language without jargon to describe the purpose of your work?)

You can also add how this served to inform your future career goals. Don't say you didn't like research and would prefer to work with people. Researchers are people. Research is almost always a team endeavor. You could say that you enjoyed the teamwork that went into the work in the lab but you want to be in a position to apply what you learn in the lab to patients under your care or that you are glad to have had the experience so as to be a better consumer of health and science literature as you use the literature to provide better patient care.

Saying only what you got out of it without saying what you did is a poor idea. Some of us judge applicants and interviewees by how well they are able to describe their work to the uninitiated. It is those communication skills that are important in small group learning in med school and with patients, families and more junior members of the team in clinical settings.

I guess what I meant to say is that in addition to describing the activity I've heard they want to see some introspection to see what you got out of your experience. At least, that's what I recall hearing from washington's and pritzker's online resources. But maybe those instructions are for non research activities, and maybe different schools want to see different things. I'm not an adcom, just another would be applicant, so I'll defer to lizzym's expertise.

Originally Posted by iforget2

I'm currently entering into my sophomore year, and have been doing research last semester and will do more the upcoming school year. I don't know if I will be able to publish a paper, or anything at all about publishing a paper to be honest, but will medical schools overlook research if you don't publish a paper?

Thanks for all your replies

There's plenty of other things you can do besides publish a paper that you can put on a med school application. You can have a poster/presentation, you can write a thesis, apply for fellowships/grants....I'm sure there's other things too.

Originally Posted by Holy FranZ

Mine just gripped about how medicine takes his brightest students and how we should consider the fullfilling career as a PI


He's probably going to leave me off the pub. Whatever.

Sounds like every PI at my school. My PI only puts you on if you write it, or some part was actually thought up by you. It makes me resent all the PIs that put 20 people on even if they did the dishes.

Here's a very helpful post from LizzyM in another thread ranking "research experience":

I'd rank research experience in this way:


11. Housekeeping and supply ordering.

10. Helping others with projects, serving as a research assistant or technician.

9. Animal surgery.

8. Pilot work prior to writing a proposal for a testable hypothesis.

7. Responsibility for testing a hypothesis.

6. Funding of your project (not your PI's funding)

5. Poster presentation at a student event

4. Podium presentation at a student event

3. Poster presentation at a regional or national meeting in your specialty (published abstract)

2. Podium presentation at a regional or national meeting in your specialty (published abstract)

1. Authorship in a peer reviewed, national publication.

This is a great assessment of various contributions to research. The gist of it is that you do not need to have a publication for your research experience to matter, but you should seek out research opportunities that have you contributing directly to the intellectual component of the study.