How do you guys have so many publications?

[sarahss]

How do people on here have so many publications from research? I've been working at a lab for 2 years and have nothing yet.. PI has been talking about getting of the projects I worked on published but it has been getting pushed back a lot since they're busy with other stuff

How were you guys so successful? luck?

thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[chronicidal]

Having mentors who are focused.

 

[Dr Love]

Most of the applicants with publications use a loose definition of the word "publication".

 

[Phlox]

The percentage of applicants with meaningful publications is very low, but perhaps this is an overrepresented group on SDN. A greater number have poster presentations, conference proceedings, etc. I wouldn't worry too much if your research hasn't led to a publication; you are in the majority.

 

[Forca Barca]

less than 1% of people who say they have publications here are bulls***ing.

 

[Doc of the Walk]

less than 1% of people who say they have publications here are bulls***ing.

So that means <99% of them are telling the true?

 

[brandxnew]

less than 1% of people who say they have publications here are bulls***ing.

That's an interesting statistic.

 

[Dr Love]

That's an interesting statistic.

90% of statistics are bullcrap.

 

[gettheleadout]

Most of the applicants with publications use a loose definition of the word "publication".

What do you mean by this? I would hope most people understand that you must be a listed author of an article in a peer-reviewed journal to be "published." Abstracts, poster presentations, conference presentations, etc don't count.

 

[Dr Love]

What do you mean by this? I would hope most people understand that you must be a listed author of an article in a peer-reviewed journal to be "published." Abstracts, poster presentations, conference presentations, etc don't count.

You and I think so, but I've seen so many applicants with stuff in undergraduate research "journals" or posters listed as publications.

 

[wololololololo]

How do people on here have so many publications from research? I've been working at a lab for 2 years and have nothing yet.. PI has been talking about getting of the projects I worked on published but it has been getting pushed back a lot since they're busy with other stuff

How were you guys so successful? luck?

thanks

Being in the right field.

 

[BrightandClear]

Having mentors who are focused.

This.

Being in the right field.

And this.

And being persistant, not being afraid to put ideas out there and push them along, and not sleeping a lot, or really having a life outside of the lab...

 

[Narmerguy]

Publishing as an undergraduate is probably 75% luck and 25% work effort.

For the most part, there's a lot of politics that goes into who gets published on a manuscript, and typically undergrads won't make the cut despite how much work they do. You could work for 4 years in a lab and never get published. However, there are some professors that strongly support undergraduates publishing, and therefore you'll find that they let their undergraduate students get published even after just 1 summer of research. Sometimes it'll even be a high-impact journal.

Don't bother yourself with whether or not you're published. Most adcoms know that whether or not you publish is largely luck as an undergrad and though it certainly looks great to have it, your research "rating" can really shine without it.

 

[BrightandClear]

Don't bother yourself with whether or not you're published. Most adcoms know that whether or not you publish is largely luck as an undergrad and though it certainly looks great to have it, your research "rating" can really shine without it.

This is very true. A lot of people can say they are published. But (in my experience) until you have first author paper, or multiple co-authored articles published on a cohesive line of research, you don't get nearly as many brownie points for being "published".

 

[gettheleadout]

This is very true. A lot of people can say they are published. But (in my experience) until you have first author paper, or multiple co-authored articles published on a cohesive line of research, you don't get nearly as many brownie points for being "published".

Maybe, but that's an even smaller percentage of applicants than the already tiny percentage that are published at all, so that's a little more specific and advanced than we're talking about here.

 

[doctorshateher]

I agree with the above posters - luck, good mentor and being in a good field.

Vertebrate developmental biology is not a good field, as I learned. My projects all ran for 5 months after we set them up. Only then did we even start collecting data.

I've heard that immuno is a good field for pubs because research turnaround is fast and there are plenty of places to publish.

 

[CodeBlu]

I've worked in this lab for 5 years... I've got one publication.

Albeit, it's a nature biotech publication.

Most papers in Nature, Journal of Biol Chem etc. are the culmination of many years of work/research. Even still.

You can publish 100 papers in crappy journals. Or you can publish 3 or 4 in really high impact journals.

When my supervisor gets a padded CV, he's like... What is this journal? Looks it up... and it's not peer reviewed? That application then becomes scrap paper.

Better to have a CV with 3 or 4 good publications than 30-40 fillers.

 

[CodeBlu]

I agree with the above posters - luck, good mentor and being in a good field.

Vertebrate developmental biology is not a good field, as I learned. My projects all ran for 5 months after we set them up. Only then did we even start collecting data.

I've heard that immuno is a good field for pubs because research turnaround is fast and there are plenty of places to publish.

Heeeeeeeeeeck no. Getting stuff to go right in immuno and get publishable results is not as easy as you make it sound.

 

[doctorshateher]

Bummer. I dunno what field is good then. My immuno professor told me that once, but she also didnt actually have any current research projects so...grain of salt.

She also mostly worked in research in the mid-80s when immuno stuff was happening really fast.

 

[AsianPersuasion]

*Putting on my gunner cap *

Which field of research do you guys suggest that has a higher chance of getting published?

 

[CodeBlu]

Bummer. I dunno what field is good then. My immuno professor told me that once, but she also didnt actually have any current research projects so...grain of salt.

She also mostly worked in research in the mid-80s when immuno stuff was happening really fast.

Not that I'm an expert in research... but I know a thing or two about picking a supervisor. If they haven't published in the last 2 months prior to your arrival... chances are they are stagnant. You need to find a lab that pumps out high quality pubs. If you want to do research, you have to "*****" yourself out... for the money that is. More grant money, means more projects, more to do, and more to publish.

No matter what anyone tells you, the PI needs you, not the other way around. Yeah, sure there's a ton of people in line to work in a lab. But if you have great grades and show potential, they're going to want you instead.

Play the game.

*Putting on my gunner cap *

Which field of research do you guys suggest that has a higher chance of getting published?

Robots-nanobots/stem cells. Cutting edge stuff. Check out the journals: Blood, Cell, Cell Stem Cell, Nature Biotechnology etc.

 

[kautionwirez]

my PIs are sitting on 3 projects finished months before ready to be published

PLEASE WRITE THEM!

 

[doctorshateher]

Nanotechnology - very true. I worked one summer in nanotechnology and got more publishable results than in 2 years of turtle (yes, turtle) research.

The upside of the turtle project was that it was totally independent and 75% self-designed.

 

[CodeBlu]

Nanotechnology - very true. I worked one summer in nanotechnology and got more publishable results than in 2 years of turtle (yes, turtle) research.

The upside of the turtle project was that it was totally independent and 75% self-designed.

But... but... it's TURTLES.

Not the cool ones either.

 

[pfaction]

I have one publication in the works from a semester's worth of intense research. By intense, I mean poorly funded but still somehow gave us results. The reviewers want a follow up so we start again in August, but it's only one thing and blammo, acceptance.

I dunno what journal, but it's obviously peer reviewed.

 

[CodeBlu]

Cancer therapy... re-designed.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QwyMWM0Jjg[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Healer of Ills]

As someone who has done a considerable amount of research I can tell you that it is exceedingly rare for an undergraduate to have their own paper published (1st author) simply because you are working under a particular research group and the research is not your own. This is reserved for the principal investigator.

However, undergrad's involved in research can be listed on papers published in scientific journals as 4th or 5th authors or elsewhere. This would not be considered one's own "publication"

 

[Frazier]

How do people on here have so many publications from research? I've been working at a lab for 2 years and have nothing yet.. PI has been talking about getting of the projects I worked on published but it has been getting pushed back a lot since they're busy with other stuff

How were you guys so successful? luck?

Don't be intimidated by what other people do...

The thing is that (similar to GPA comparison efforts across institutions), we can't easily compare the "number of publications" that SDN members have because everyone has their own opinion of what is appropriate for listing under the "Publication" tab on AMCAS.

For example, some don't think that publication/s in university research journals should be included. However, I don't care. My university journal is peer reviewed, welcomes submissions from across the state and rejects submissions... A few of my pubs are from there. Since most people don't have anything at all -- bet your ass that I'm gonna throw them in to be noticed.

 

[AsianPersuasion]

Robots-nanobots/stem cells. Cutting edge stuff. Check out the journals: Blood, Cell, Cell Stem Cell, Nature Biotechnology etc.

Thanks man

As someone who has done a considerable amount of research I can tell you that it is exceedingly rare for an undergraduate to have their own paper published (1st author) simply because you are working under a particular research group and the research is not your own. This is reserved for the principal investigator.

However, undergrad's involved in research can be listed on papers published in scientific journals as 4th or 5th authors or elsewhere. This would not be considered one's own "publication"

How does one climb that latter to be 2nd, 3d author etc to call it their own publication?

 

[RookTookIt]

*Putting on my gunner cap *

Which field of research do you guys suggest that has a higher chance of getting published?

If you're not talking about only basic research, my vote would be public health.

Worked super hard in developmental labs (2 labs x 3 years each) -- first-author publication (and only because I was extremely lucky)
Spent a month analyzing some data that had already been collected for a public health thesis -- first author publication.

 

[Frazier]

If you're not talking about only basic research, my vote would be public health.

Worked super hard in developmental labs (2 labs x 3 years each) -- first-author publication (and only because I was extremely lucky)
Spent a month analyzing some data that had already been collected for a public health thesis -- first author publication.

^^^ This.

 

[BrightandClear]

As someone who has done a considerable amount of research I can tell you that it is exceedingly rare for an undergraduate to have their own paper published (1st author) simply because you are working under a particular research group and the research is not your own. This is reserved for the principal investigator.

2 of the undergrads in my lab (of about 6-10, depending on time of year, etc.) have published first-author papers. 2 more have papers currently under-review. They do tend to be in lower impact journals, brief reports, etc., but they're still peer-reviewed publications.

Right place, right mentor, right attitude.

If you're not talking about only basic research, my vote would be public health.

Anything applied (like public health) is going to be easier to publish in.

 

[gettheleadout]

However, undergrad's involved in research can be listed on papers published in scientific journals as 4th or 5th authors or elsewhere. This would not be considered one's own "publication"

I'd like to see how others feel about this.

 

[pfaction]

I'm 4th author on the upcoming and I'll be damned if I'm told it "doesn't count". 6 months of work, it counts. I'm 4th because I was the "finisher".

 

[Illinois2012]

I'd like to see how others feel about this.

Well I'd be pumped about getting a publication whether I was 4th, 5th or even 10th. I've been working in my lab for a while. Two abstracts to show for it, but no pub in the truest sense. Getting a first author pub would be real tough, considering I really don't think I know enough about the field or really deserve one. I don't know how undergrads get those. I know grad students that work years for a first author pub.

 

[BrightandClear]

I'd like to see how others feel about this.

There's a difference between the term "being published" that gets thrown around quite a bit, and having your own "publication".

If you're listed beyond second author on a pub, should you refer to as "my publication on xxx"? No (unless there are extremely extenuating circumstances). Can you put it on your CV under Publications? Yes.

Anybody in academia (PIs, adcomes, whatever) understands the difference between these two, and all that it entails.

 

[vin5cent0]

Realizing that the average applicant isn't represented by SDN is the first step in figuring your question out. I have a pretty average GPA, right now I'm scoring mid-upper 20s on the MCAT, and I have zero publications. In all honesty, I'm probably more representative of a typical applicant than most of SDN, yet I'm an outlier on here.

 

[pfaction]

That's why we're on SDN. Through our combined neuroticism and grasps to be non-average, we create a field where we're beyond uptight about certain things.

 

[Healer of Ills]

2 of the undergrads in my lab (of about 6-10, depending on time of year, etc.) have published first-author papers. 2 more have papers currently under-review. They do tend to be in lower impact journals, brief reports, etc., but they're still peer-reviewed publications.

Right place, right mentor, right attitude.



Anything applied (like public health) is going to be easier to publish in.

That many undergrads with first author papers huh? Thats quite impressive. Does your institution have some sort of a special research program/opportunity for undergrads?

 

[CodeBlu]

Going to a major academic center in Chicago, New York, St. Louis, Baltimore, Washington, Boston etc. for school can be beneficial in terms of getting research pubs.

I know 3 of my friends also have first author pubs in well respected journals.

 

[BrightandClear]

That many undergrads with first author papers huh? Thats quite impressive. Does your institution have some sort of a special research program/opportunity for undergrads?

No. We did have a visiting undergrad in this summer for a special research program, though. She was terrible and got fired. I'm also not at a major academic center in a big city.

My PI values (i.e. devotes time to) students developing independent projects and carrying them through to publication. We're also at a good place in our field and do research that is rather "cutting edge".

Bottom line: pick your mentors well and work really, really hard and it can happen

Edited to add:
We also don't have a lot of senior researchers in the group (scientists, post-docs, fellows, etc.) which leads to more opportunities for lab members further down the ladder. And our PI is up for tenure very soon, so she's motivated to get results published.

 

[gettheleadout]

Well I'd be pumped about getting a publication whether I was 4th, 5th or even 10th. I've been working in my lab for a while. Two abstracts to show for it, but no pub in the truest sense. Getting a first author pub would be real tough, considering I really don't think I know enough about the field or really deserve one. I don't know how undergrads get those. I know grad students that work years for a first author pub.

Same.

There's a difference between the term "being published" that gets thrown around quite a bit, and having your own "publication".

If you're listed beyond second author on a pub, should you refer to as "my publication on xxx"? No (unless there are extremely extenuating circumstances). Can you put it on your CV under Publications? Yes.

Anybody in academia (PIs, adcomes, whatever) understands the difference between these two, and all that it entails.

Interesting, makes sense.

 

[TriagePreMed]

I'm getting second author on a publication soon. My entirely lab is pissed (silently) at me because I barely came in as a summer researcher and everything I did with the post-doc turned out fast, good, and easy.

I understand how hard it is to publish something for some, but there is no magic trick. You just get lucky with some projects and not with others.

 

[dartmed]

I have 2 primary author publications, and I would like to add my two cents.

My first publication was in Physiology, and I started on this project 6 years ago as a freshman in high school. Yes, it's a little crazy, but I enjoyed the work that I was doing. I had an amazing PI, and I learned a lot. I am finally getting a publication at the end of my sophomore year in college for slaving away all my summers. So, it does take a while, and I do think primary author publications are very rare. Most of the students who have primary author stayed in a lab for more than 3 years.

My second first author publication was in a very prestigious journal (health policy paper). I got this publication after two weeks worth of work. It took me longer to write the publication than the work I have done. However, I found an issue that I thought that needed to be addressed. This one was just luck, the right place, right time type of thing.

So, getting 1st author publications are a combination of luck, hard-work, and commitment.

 

[tn4596]

you are not going for a phD, why chase publication, research should just be an activity where you can apply some of the knowledge you learn in class. Being in a science project, i find it hard if not impossible to get a worthwhile publication in 2 years. Even if you start your project as a freshman or sophmore, you won't even understand anything because your background knowledge is so limited. Lots of the techniques used need time to master. Sometimes shiet doesnt work for the stupidest reason (ie. the chemical I used was purchased from the 70s and is out of date or I forgot to disinfect my equipments and now all my samples is contaminated with fungus and bacteria).
Consider your research experience a mighty success if you get to do a poster presentation.

 

[Illinois2012]

you are not going for a phD, why chase publication, research should just be an activity where you can apply some of the knowledge you learn in class. Being in a science project, i find it hard if not impossible to get a worthwhile publication in 2 years. Even if you start your project as a freshman or sophmore, you won't even understand anything because your background knowledge is so limited. Lots of the techniques used need time to master. Sometimes shiet doesnt work for the stupidest reason (ie. the chemical I used was purchased from the 70s and is out of date or I forgot to disinfect my equipments and now all my samples is contaminated with fungus and bacteria).
Consider your research experience a mighty success if you get to do a poster presentation.

This. And in all honesty, I don't even think you need the poster presentation for it to be a success. I think it really comes down to what you learned and your overall involvement. If you can talk intelligently about the subject and research, then that's going to reflect positively on your research experience.

 

[chemistryguy]

Different people have different conventions when putting authors on puublications. However, its really usually the primary author thats done the majority of the work, along with the PI that really count. the amount of authors that some people put on papers is ridiculous, and if their are a lot of authors on a paper, its a pretty safe bet to say that not many people will be impressed if your listed.

By the way, there are tons of graduate students that go through many years of hard work and still dont publish a paper, so publications dont necesarily correlate with amount of work done. Id say that a letter from the PI is much more important than being able to list a publication.

 

[YouNeverKnow22]

Publishing as an undergraduate is probably 75% luck and 25% work effort.

For the most part, there's a lot of politics that goes into who gets published on a manuscript, and typically undergrads won't make the cut despite how much work they do. You could work for 4 years in a lab and never get published. However, there are some professors that strongly support undergraduates publishing, and therefore you'll find that they let their undergraduate students get published even after just 1 summer of research. Sometimes it'll even be a high-impact journal.

Don't bother yourself with whether or not you're published. Most adcoms know that whether or not you publish is largely luck as an undergrad and though it certainly looks great to have it, your research "rating" can really shine without it.

very true


I'll have 3 within 1.5 years of clinical research (2 1st author and 1 second author) in good nsg and rad onc journals....a lot of it had to do with luck of having mentors who love publishing, give you quick turnaround when you are working through drafts and are willing to go to bat for you.

 

[chronicidal]

Not that I'm an expert in research... but I know a thing or two about picking a supervisor. If they haven't published in the last 2 months prior to your arrival... chances are they are stagnant. You need to find a lab that pumps out high quality pubs. If you want to do research, you have to "*****" yourself out... for the money that is. More grant money, means more projects, more to do, and more to publish.

Robots-nanobots/stem cells. Cutting edge stuff. Check out the journals: Blood, Cell, Cell Stem Cell, Nature Biotechnology etc.

I'd add that there is apparently a sweet spot for lab size in terms of productivity. I've heard more than once that in big labs with tons of money, there's much less push to publish everyone. Chances are that at least one person in the lab is near publication, just not you.

For big labs, whether you publish or even get a good project is dependent not on your PI but on your post-doc/grad student. You need good luck to get a mentor who designs well-thought out projects and will give you your own chunk. It's very hard to tell before you join a lab who you'll be working with, but it's unfortunately very important.

I like the advice on picking supervisors based on their most recent publication history. However, it doesn't always work. In the one year before I joined, my lab published papers in top-notch journals: Nature, Nature Biotech, Cell Stem Cell, Development, PNAS. In the two years since I joined, my lab has not published anything.

 

[URHere]

When it comes to publications, you also need to figure out how generous a potential PI is with giving out authorship spots.

Some PIs are notorious for adding brief collaborators, lab techs, etc as authors in papers. Others put those people in the acknowledgements section and leave it at that. If you are in a lab with a generous PI, and you do your work, you will probably get your name on a paper...regardless of whether you really deserve it. In other labs, unless the project was your brainchild, you oversaw it, and did the much-loathed troubleshooting, you won't be on the paper. It doesn't matter if you collected 100% of the data - if it wasn't your project, many PIs won't put your name on it.

Just something to keep in mind.