Value of publishing in high impact journal

[Steven1991]

I'm finishing up a few experiments for two publications that will be submitted to Neuron and Nature (both non first author) within the next couple of months. Does anyone know if any weight is placed by med schools on where the articles are published? Especially considering i am non first author? I'll have a first author publication a bit further down the road but most probably in a lower impact journal. Would that one be more valuable since it's first author despite being in a lower impact journal?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[samsunimomo]

Having any publication is above the threshold that adcoms expect of applicants. Publications can't hurt, certainly, but they won't make up for an otherwise weak application.

 

[phunky]

These kinds of questions will matter a lot more when you're applying to residencies and fellowships than medical school. A publication definitely looks good, even better if it's in a high impact journal, but medical schools will be more interested in what you contributed and the experience you gained from working on the project than the name of the journal it was published in.

 

[Reckoner]

Would that one be more valuable since it's first author despite being in a lower impact journal?

Yes. First authorship generally means that you were intellectually responsible for the project and wrote the manuscript. This is more impressive than middle authorship, even if it is a big Neuron paper. Especially as an undergrad. That middle authorship might mean you recovered a few cells that ended up being used for the paper and the postdoc you worked under threw you a bone.

Now you just need to work on that first author Nature paper so you won't have to worry

 

[cookiemonsters]

Unless it's like NEJM, Cell, Nature, Lancet, etc I don't think they really care.

 

[phunky]

Yes. First authorship generally means that you were intellectually responsible for the project and wrote the manuscript.

Intellectually responsible for the project, yes. But I'm second author on several manuscripts that I drafted entirely myself. Obviously major revisions happen, but in my experience PIs of big labs don't actually draft their own manuscripts.

 

[cs24]

Intellectually responsible for the project, yes. But I'm second author on several manuscripts that I drafted entirely myself. Obviously major revisions happen, but in my experience PIs of big labs don't actually draft their own manuscripts.

Right but they are usually last author, not first.

 

[wanderer]

Any publication looks great especially if you have early authorship. Nature is probably more impressive than other journals but honestly the difference between publishing in nature versus a lower impact factor journal doesn't say much about the student other than the fact that they got set up with the right mentor.

 

[lumpyduster]

^^ truth. There are probably some amazing u-grads out there that have the ability to write a Nature-worthy article on their own, but my stuff is honestly not that impactful (not a word), and so I would have to hope for second or third author from association with another project. my PI has written like editorials for Nature and stuff, but it seems like he's more interested in just getting their articles out in a reasonable amount of time and the lab complains nature takes too long to review. So my dreams of getting my name on a Nature article was extinguished but don't even care because it honestly doesn't matter.

 

[Reckoner]

Intellectually responsible for the project, yes. But I'm second author on several manuscripts that I drafted entirely myself. Obviously major revisions happen, but in my experience PIs of big labs don't actually draft their own manuscripts.

Right, which is why I said generally. Some PIs handle authorship differently. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the second point. Of course PIs don't (usually) draft their own manuscripts. That's why they're listed as the last author.

 

[Goro]

A pub will always get attention. Will it make up for low GPA or MCAT? No.

I'm finishing up a few experiments for two publications that will be submitted to Neuron and Nature (both non first author) within the next couple of months. Does anyone know if any weight is placed by med schools on where the articles are published? Especially considering i am non first author? I'll have a first author publication a bit further down the road but most probably in a lower impact journal. Would that one be more valuable since it's first author despite being in a lower impact journal?

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

Yes. First authorship generally means that you were intellectually responsible for the project and wrote the manuscript. This is more impressive than middle authorship, even if it is a big Neuron paper. Especially as an undergrad. That middle authorship might mean you recovered a few cells that ended up being used for the paper and the postdoc you worked under threw you a bone.

Now you just need to work on that first author Nature paper so you won't have to worry

I really doubt someone will include your name on a high impact paper based on such weak contributions, so very few in academia will see it that way. More likely is that a person contributed at least a figure to the paper.

Sure, first author sounds more impressive, but I'd be more interested in someone that has worked at a top lab in a paper off high impact than someone with first author in a small lab and a low impact journal. Almost universally people know small papers are either left overs from big papers or from labs with limited funding and don't use as in depth techniques.

 

[Oso]

I really doubt someone will include your name on a high impact paper based on such weak contributions, so very few in academia will see it that way. More likely is that a person contributed at least a figure to the paper.

Sure, first author sounds more impressive, but I'd be more interested in someone that has worked at a top lab in a paper off high impact than someone with first author in a small lab and a low impact journal. Almost universally people know small papers are either left overs from big papers or from labs with limited funding and don't use as in depth techniques.

But not every undergrad has the opportunity to work in a 'top' lab, and it is sometimes difficult to tell which lab will publish in more prestigious journals as a freshman/sophomore in college. A third or fourth authorship in a high impact journal could still be from a decent contribution, but I would be more interested in a first author paper in a smaller journal because it shows they really had a hand in carrying out the project. I would be slightly more interested in an undergrad that truly understands the exercise of research (first author pub) rather than one who played a small part in the project but has a name in a fancy journal. I believe that acknowledging both things are important, but placing an emphasis on the authorship makes it a bit more equal for undergrads from small schools that lack top labs or undergrads who only got one lab position and weren't able to choose the most productive lab. Just my $0.02 though. In the end, any decent publication will be looked at favorably, and I bet that comparing journal articles between two candidates is hardly ever the selecting factor.

Congrats on the publications, OP!

 

[chillaxbro]

I really doubt someone will include your name on a high impact paper based on such weak contributions, so very few in academia will see it that way. More likely is that a person contributed at least a figure to the paper.

Sure, first author sounds more impressive, but I'd be more interested in someone that has worked at a top lab in a paper off high impact than someone with first author in a small lab and a low impact journal. Almost universally people know small papers are either left overs from big papers or from labs with limited funding and don't use as in depth techniques.

I know someone who's name was added to a paper just to help boost his AMCAS with no contribution at all. The paper was originally submitted to Nature (although it was ultimately declined). Point is it's probably more common than you think

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

But not every undergrad has the opportunity to work in a 'top' lab, and it is sometimes difficult to tell which lab will publish in more prestigious journals as a freshman/sophomore in college. A third or fourth authorship in a high impact journal could still be from a decent contribution, but I would be more interested in a first author paper in a smaller journal because it shows they really had a hand in carrying out the project. I would be slightly more interested in an undergrad that truly understands the exercise of research (first author pub) rather than one who played a small part in the project but has a name in a fancy journal. I believe that acknowledging both things are important, but placing an emphasis on the authorship makes it a bit more equal for undergrads from small schools that lack top labs or undergrads who only got one lab position and weren't able to choose the most productive lab. Just my $0.02 though. In the end, any decent publication will be looked at favorably, and I bet that comparing journal articles between two candidates is hardly ever the selecting factor.

Congrats on the publications, OP!

That's a good counterargument. I would agree that being at a top lab is not an opportunity everyone has and is based on luck many times, but that is no different than the advantage and opportunity of going to UC San Diego vs CSU-Fresno. The system is inherently unequal. However, your outlook on publications is not something I can disagree with. That's another legitimate way of interpreting the data.

 

[Amba]

Congrats on the publications, OP!

It is worth noting the elephant in this thread: OP hasn't even submitted these papers yet, much less had them get accepted. You have a long and arduous road ahead of you, OP, especially with the journals you are aiming for. I wish you luck.

As for the conversation at hand, first-authorship in a respectable journal (IF ~3-4+, though this is field-dependent) probably looks the best at an undergraduate/pre-medical school level. A co-authorship at a top journal is nice, but if that's all you have on your CV, I would question your ability to lead your own project. Ideally you'll have a nice mix of first and co-authored papers eventually on your ERAS.

But in reality, any publication will help your medical school application.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

I know someone who's name was added to a paper just to help boost his AMCAS with no contribution at all. The paper was originally submitted to Nature (although it was ultimately declined). Point is it's probably more common than you think

That may very well be true but it may also be n=1. I think it's highly disappointing if someone is given the opportunity to join a paper just out of pity. This is why candidates should be questioned thoroughly about their publications: both content and what their direct contributions were. Scientifically speaking, you are 100% responsible for understanding what's on the paper if you have authorship and even responsible for the honesty of the contents, but I realize this is almost never enforced.

 

[Oso]

That's a good counterargument. I would agree that being at a top lab is not an opportunity everyone has and is based on luck many times, but that is no different than the advantage and opportunity of going to UC San Diego vs CSU-Fresno. The system is inherently unequal. However, your outlook on publications is not something I can disagree with. That's another legitimate way of interpreting the data.

Such a polite response, thank you. And yep, a lot of the time the lab you work in and the opportunities you're presented with are based on chance and luck. But in the end, any publications will be above and beyond the vast majority of med school applicants.

It is worth noting the elephant in this thread: OP hasn't even submitted these papers yet, much less had them get accepted. You have a long and arduous road ahead of you, OP, especially with the journals you are aiming for. I wish you luck.

Oops, I misread and thought he said the papers were accepted. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[phunky]

I know someone who's name was added to a paper just to help boost his AMCAS with no contribution at all. The paper was originally submitted to Nature (although it was ultimately declined). Point is it's probably more common than you think

Damn my PI and his "research ethics."

 

[Reckoner]

I really doubt someone will include your name on a high impact paper based on such weak contributions, so very few in academia will see it that way. More likely is that a person contributed at least a figure to the paper.

Sure, first author sounds more impressive, but I'd be more interested in someone that has worked at a top lab in a paper off high impact than someone with first author in a small lab and a low impact journal. Almost universally people know small papers are either left overs from big papers or from labs with limited funding and don't use as in depth techniques.

This happens more often than I think you acknowledge. For example, at the place I work lab techs never used to get their names on papers, until a couple labs had phenomenal techs and started rewarding them with middle authorship. Seeing this, my institute started including number of publications in their review of tech performance. So now every lab gives middle authorship to their techs. From what I've heard, this isn't limited to my institute.

And I don't understand why you would be more interested in the first student. You have no idea what their involvement in the project was. People get terrible mentorship in famous labs all the time. At least with the second you know they contributed enough that the PI felt them worthy of primary authorship.

 

[Cinclus]

Any pubs look fantastic. Being able to say you have a Nature paper? That's pretty sweet. Either way, it will look good.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

This happens more often than I think you acknowledge. For example, at the place I work lab techs never used to get their names on papers, until a couple labs had phenomenal techs and started rewarding them with middle authorship. Seeing this, my institute started including number of publications in their review of tech performance. So now every lab gives middle authorship to their techs. From what I've heard, this isn't limited to my institute.

And I don't understand why you would be more interested in the first student. You have no idea what their involvement in the project was. People get terrible mentorship in famous labs all the time. At least with the second you know they contributed enough that the PI felt them worthy of primary authorship.

Well, it's true my experience is only at 2 labs in relatively the same area, so you could be right outside my bubble. I don't see the problem with techs getting authorship. If you ask a tech to perform certain experiments and interpret the results, they made a contribution. You don't need to actually write the paper to deserve some authorship. Middle authorship sounds reasonable for any tech that has worked in a project.

EDiT: I hope we have the same definition of a tech. Here techs do a lot of work that goes beyond just pipetting stuff like a robot.

 

[CyberMaxx]

This happens more often than I think you acknowledge. For example, at the place I work lab techs never used to get their names on papers, until a couple labs had phenomenal techs and started rewarding them with middle authorship. Seeing this, my institute started including number of publications in their review of tech performance. So now every lab gives middle authorship to their techs. From what I've heard, this isn't limited to my institute.

One of my friends works in a lab like this. She is a tech and every six months or so her PI assigns her a small discrete set of experiments that generally get made into one figure. If this figure makes it into a manuscript then her name goes on it. Impressively she has gotten her name on four publications this way pre-dental school.

On the other end of the spectrum my PI is an old school physiologist and values large papers with as few authors as possible. I worked under my first mentor in the lab for two years, generating data and making figures that went into two papers, but my name didn't go on either of them. It wasn't until I was given an independent project and brought that project to fruition that I got my first publication.

With undergraduate publishing much of your success depends on the type of lab your in. That being said, when I look at someone's CV I value first author publications in lower impact journals more than middle author publications in high impact journals because the range of involvement required to gain a middle authorship is so highly variable lab to lab.

 

[Steven1991]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I did put quite a bit of work (electrophysiology) into the potential Nature paper but it's a collaboration for another lab so who knows where I'll be on the author list. As for the potential Neuron paper, it contains work from my undergrad (currently pursuing an MSc) so I'll be second author. I'm just hoping that these publications in addition to decent grades (35/3.85(UG)/4.0(MSC)) and extracurriculars will help me out as a Canadian applicant.

 

[Reckoner]

Well, it's true my experience is only at 2 labs in relatively the same area, so you could be right outside my bubble. I don't see the problem with techs getting authorship. If you ask a tech to perform certain experiments and interpret the results, they made a contribution. You don't need to actually write the paper to deserve some authorship. Middle authorship sounds reasonable for any tech that has worked in a project.

EDiT: I hope we have the same definition of a tech. Here techs do a lot of work that goes beyond just pipetting stuff like a robot.

Oh I have no problem with techs getting on publications. Our techs are fantastic at what they do. I was just trying to point out how much variability there can be with middle authorship. Similar to @cybermaxx12's situation, my old PI didn't put anyone's name on a paper unless they designed an experiment. First authorship is at least a bit more standardized and easy to interpret across labs.

Thanks for the replies everyone. I did put quite a bit of work (electrophysiology) into the potential Nature paper but it's a collaboration for another lab so who knows where I'll be on the author list. As for the potential Neuron paper, it contains work from my undergrad (currently pursuing an MSc) so I'll be second author. I'm just hoping that these publications in addition to decent grades (35/3.85(UG)/4.0(MSC)) and extracurriculars will help me out as a Canadian applicant.

Damn. I know being Canadian makes it tougher but that sounds like a great application, especially for big research universities. Good luck with those submissions and your application!

 

[BlackBox]

I really doubt someone will include your name on a high impact paper based on such weak contributions, so very few in academia will see it that way. More likely is that a person contributed at least a figure to the paper.

Sure, first author sounds more impressive, but I'd be more interested in someone that has worked at a top lab in a paper off high impact than someone with first author in a small lab and a low impact journal. Almost universally people know small papers are either left overs from big papers or from labs with limited funding and don't use as in depth techniques.

This is one of the dumbest things I've read on sdn. Seriously. Anyone who knows what they're talking about would never say this.

I've published in high and low ranking journals. The decision on where to send a manuscript is decided upon by a combination of factors (the broad nature of a story, completeness, competition, etc), not because the data is 'left over from a larger manuscript. Further, to make the assertion that those papers published in lower tier journals are there bc the science is from underfunded or lack of depth is ridiculous. I literally just snorted when I read this.

Here's what the OP needs to know:
The order of authorship is most important- first and last (corresponding).

Publishing in the big 3 (cell, science, nature) is a bonus bc it has name recognition over say, Plos Pathogens. However, a first or corresponding authorship in a top specific journal (like plos path) is FAR MORE preferable than some middle authorship in a science paper.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

This is one of the dumbest things I've read on sdn. Seriously. Anyone who knows what they're talking about would never say this.

I've published in high and low ranking journals. The decision on where to send a manuscript is decided upon by a combination of factors (the broad nature of a story, completeness, competition, etc), not because the data is 'left over from a larger manuscript. Further, to make the assertion that those papers published in lower tier journals are there bc the science is from underfunded or lack of depth is ridiculous. I literally just snorted when I read this.

Here's what the OP needs to know:
The order of authorship is most important- first and last (corresponding).

Publishing in the big 3 (cell, science, nature) is a bonus bc it has name recognition over say, Plos Pathogens. However, a first or corresponding authorship in a top specific journal (like plos path) is FAR MORE preferable than some middle authorship in a science paper.

What the hell are you talking about? You're crazy. PLoS-Pathogens has an impact factor of about 8 or 9. That's a respectable place to publish in. Lower ranked journals have impact factors of <2.5. If you have ever bothered to read a journal like that, the far majority of them are not in depth. They simply don't have the money to be able to do all the necessary experiments or it's stuff that's leftover. Read into how many journals exist now internationally. You can almost get anything published if you're willing to go down enough.

I'm not impressed by a kid that worked wt rodents and all he did was inject a couple of different drugs to see a change in a certain behavior. It's far more worthy to have a student that has ran a number of different protocols and problems than someone in the previous scenario.

 

[BlackBox]

What the hell are you talking about? You're crazy. PLoS-Pathogens has an impact factor of about 8 or 9. That's a respectable place to publish in. Lower ranked journals have impact factors of <2.5. If you have ever bothered to read a journal like that, the far majority of them are not in depth. They simply don't have the money to be able to do all the necessary experiments or it's stuff that's leftover. Read into how many journals exist now internationally. You can almost get anything published if you're willing to go down enough.

I'm not impressed by a kid that worked wt rodents and all he did was inject a couple of different drugs to see a change in a certain behavior. It's far more worthy to have a student that has ran a number of different protocols and problems than someone in the previous scenario.

Here's what I'm talking about (and you're either crazy or naive):

1. Your idea of journal rank is simply wrong. How have your drawn this arbitrary impact factor (2.5?!) cutoff? The fact you even refer solely to a journal's impact factor as a predictive quality indicates you are not taking into consideration everything that a journal is. J. Bacteriology is considered one of the top journals in the field of bacteriology. It's impact factor is 3.0- right on the cusp of your worthiness scale (you use the term "respectable"). Should people read it? YES. Everyone in the field reads it. People publish in these journals for MANY reasons. One big reason is to avoid being scooped by a competing lab. Does it mean the science is incomplete or poorly funded? NO. It means the authors needed to get it out quickly.

2. The original gripe I have with your post is your assertion that, "[a]lmost universally people know small papers are either left overs from big papers or from labs with limited funding and don't use as in depth techniques." This is blatantly false, and you state it with such ignorant certainty that people may actually believe it. Besides being wrong, it belittles the accomplishments of many people and makes super-nervous pre-meds even more nervous. I can only assume you made this statement out of naivety owing to your 'two labs worth' of experience. "They don't have the money to be able to do all the necessary experiments or it's stuff that's left over." Seriously? Even if I put aside all my PhD and Postdoctoral training I cannot accept a syllable of this nonsense.

3. Yes, I have "bothered to read a journal like" Plos Path. Here's the link to a paper I published in Plos Path and the accompanying press release.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

Here's what I'm talking about (and you're either crazy or naive):

1. Your idea of journal rank is simply wrong. How have your drawn this arbitrary impact factor (2.5?!) cutoff? The fact you even refer solely to a journal's impact factor as a predictive quality indicates you are not taking into consideration everything that a journal is. J. Bacteriology is considered one of the top journals in the field of bacteriology. It's impact factor is 3.0- right on the cusp of your worthiness scale (you use the term "respectable"). Should people read it? YES. Everyone in the field reads it. People publish in these journals for MANY reasons. One big reason is to avoid being scooped by a competing lab. Does it mean the science is incomplete or poorly funded? NO. It means the authors needed to get it out quickly.

2. The original gripe I have with your post is your assertion that, "[a]lmost universally people know small papers are either left overs from big papers or from labs with limited funding and don't use as in depth techniques." This is blatantly false, and you state it with such ignorant certainty that people may actually believe it. Besides being wrong, it belittles the accomplishments of many people and makes super-nervous pre-meds even more nervous. I can only assume you made this statement out of naivety owing to your 'two labs worth' of experience. "They don't have the money to be able to do all the necessary experiments or it's stuff that's left over." Seriously? Even if I put aside all my PhD and Postdoctoral training I cannot accept a syllable of this nonsense.

3. Yes, I have "bothered to read a journal like" Plos Path. Here's the link to a paper I published in Plos Path and the accompanying press release.

There's no need for anyone to be called crazy of naive. Lets not go that path.

I chose 2.5 to be able to have a realistic conversation point. You're trying to find exceptions to make it sound like it's a norm.

When did I say the science of a paper was incomplete? I said it was not in depth. Take a journal like the European Journal of Pharmacology. There are numerous studies where all they do is inject an animal and see the reaction after various time points. The science is not "incomplete," but it is lacking in depth. The finds are not novel enough. This almost universally happens in labs that don't have the giant R01 to buy all the other stuff to go deeper. Just try looking at where most of those studies are conducted. Do you think the stuff in your lab comes out of magic? Have you ever been in a lab with limited funding or talked to someone that runs one? Because I have and it certainly impacts what experiments they do.

Did you bother to even read what I said? I already said PLoS-Pathogens is a respectable journal. It looks like all you're trying to do is a twisted plea to authority. You put your journal article out and now that somehow makes you an expert.

 

[BlackBox]

There's no need for anyone to be called crazy of naive. Lets not go that path.

I chose 2.5 to be able to have a realistic conversation point. You're trying to find exceptions to make it sound like it's a norm.

When did I say the science of a paper was incomplete? I said it was not in depth. Take a journal like the European Journal of Pharmacology. There are numerous studies where all they do is inject an animal and see the reaction after various time points. The science is not "incomplete," but it is lacking in depth. The finds are not novel enough. This almost universally happens in labs that don't have the giant R01 to buy all the other stuff to go deeper. Just try looking at where most of those studies are conducted. Do you think the stuff in your lab comes out of magic? Have you ever been in a lab with limited funding or talked to someone that runs one? Because I have and it certainly impacts what experiments they do.

Did you bother to even read what I said? I already said PLoS-Pathogens is a respectable journal. It looks like all you're trying to do is a twisted plea to authority. You put your journal article out and now that somehow makes you an expert.

The bold text above corresponds to the numbers below.

1. You already went down the 'crazy' path when you called me crazy. However, you are naive- a point I'll come back to.
2. You are splitting hairs with what you say. Another naive comment- "The finds are not novel enough." Thanks for determining this.
3. "This almost universally happens..." Please tell what experience you are drawing on here. You're calling it almost universal, I just asked my lab- no one seems to know this. Maybe we're just in the dark.
4. Magic? Yes. I believe my science is mostly magic- as do the students I train.
5. Finances impact what expensive experiments one can do, not where a lab publishes. Do you see the difference? Case in point- The field of Crispr-based genome editing doesn't contain overtly expensive experiments, yet current labs have published in top journals and will garner Nobel Prize attention in the coming years. In fact, the first few papers on this technology were published in journals with <2.5 impact factors. Is it lacking in depth? Not novel enough? NO. In this case it's a combination of application and trend, not money.
6. I don't believe anyone is an expert on SDN. However, I'll take my 10+ years in academic science over whatever you have. I'm not the one trying to give out factually-incorrect information. Apparently, neither are you- you're simply too naive to realize it.

 

[XmedBarney]

@AlbinoHawk DO @BlackBox

If a student says they have a 1st author publication in a journal, why not just read it directly rather than worrying about the quality of the journal it's in, isn't that the bottom line?

Also AlbinoHawk DO, the bias in your argument is that good science can't be done without big funding, is the assumption that all the good cheap science has already been done?

 

[cs24]

....Yeah for anyone who reads this thread to actually form an opinion of the worth of relative publications, I would take AlbinoHawk's comments with a huge grain of salt. I don't necessarily fully agree with how Blackbox is arguing with him, but Albino's arguments go against a lot of the prevailing mentality on pubs in SDN (authorship/your personal involvement/experiences in research and how well you can elaborate on what you gained from the experience matter much more than journal tier or impact of specific papers. Sure Nature or science (as a middle author) will raise a few eyebrows and give you a little bit of prestige cred, but won't make or break an application).

Think about if you were a med school administrator. If you are from a school that really values research, it is presumably because you want innovators who make big changes in medicine through their research coming out of your school. Who is more likely to know more about the entire research process and has the initiative and drive to see a project through to completion? Usually the first author of a paper, rather than a middle author.

 

[cs24]

@AlbinoHawk DO @BlackBox

If a student says they have a 1st author publication in a journal, why not just read it directly rather than worrying about the quality of the journal it's in, isn't that the bottom line?

Also AlbinoHawk DO, the bias in your argument is that good science can't be done without big funding, is the assumption that all the good cheap science has already been done?

I doubt med school adcoms have the time to read every publication on AMCAS from their applicants. Much easier to just ask them about the research in the interview/make assumptions from authorship.

 

[SpartanWolverine]

It is worth noting the elephant in this thread: OP hasn't even submitted these papers yet, much less had them get accepted. You have a long and arduous road ahead of you, OP, especially with the journals you are aiming for. I wish you luck.

As for the conversation at hand, first-authorship in a respectable journal (IF ~3-4+, though this is field-dependent) probably looks the best at an undergraduate/pre-medical school level. A co-authorship at a top journal is nice, but if that's all you have on your CV, I would question your ability to lead your own project. Ideally you'll have a nice mix of first and co-authored papers eventually on your ERAS.

But in reality, any publication will help your medical school application.

This.

 

[BlackBox]

I doubt med school adcoms have the time to read every publication on AMCAS from their applicants. Much easier to just ask them about the research in the interview/make assumptions from authorship.

It's true that ADCOMS are busy and will likely make assumptions based on authorship position.

 

[nellbot2000]

OP, I'll give you some insight into my experience.

Leading up to this application cycle I had 5 middle of the pack co-authorship papers, of which 2 were in " high impact journals." I had one interviewer in particular who was very impressed that I had worked on research that was published, but he was more impressed by the fact that I was able to thoroughly describe the experiments and my role at length. I understood the articles because I actually participated in the majority of the experimentation. Was this interviewer more focused on the high impact journals than the lower impact journals, yes, but regardless I knew those articles forwards and backwards. In my experience that is what really matters, not the caliber of the the journal. They want to know that you weren't just cleaning glasswear all day or counting cells ad nauseam, they want to know that you understand the research.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

The bold text above corresponds to the numbers below.

1. You already went down the 'crazy' path when you called me crazy. However, you are naive- a point I'll come back to.
2. You are splitting hairs with what you say. Another naive comment- "The finds are not novel enough." Thanks for determining this.
3. "This almost universally happens..." Please tell what experience you are drawing on here. You're calling it almost universal, I just asked my lab- no one seems to know this. Maybe we're just in the dark.
4. Magic? Yes. I believe my science is mostly magic- as do the students I train.
5. Finances impact what expensive experiments one can do, not where a lab publishes. Do you see the difference? Case in point- The field of Crispr-based genome editing doesn't contain overtly expensive experiments, yet current labs have published in top journals and will garner Nobel Prize attention in the coming years. In fact, the first few papers on this technology were published in journals with <2.5 impact factors. Is it lacking in depth? Not novel enough? NO. In this case it's a combination of application and trend, not money.
6. I don't believe anyone is an expert on SDN. However, I'll take my 10+ years in academic science over whatever you have. I'm not the one trying to give out factually-incorrect information. Apparently, neither are you- you're simply too naive to realize it.

I apologize if I called you crazy. I shouldn't have said that. We've both said our parts. I'm going to rely on what I know, and you will in yours. Let those reading decide.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

@AlbinoHawk DO @BlackBox

If a student says they have a 1st author publication in a journal, why not just read it directly rather than worrying about the quality of the journal it's in, isn't that the bottom line?

Also AlbinoHawk DO, the bias in your argument is that good science can't be done without big funding, is the assumption that all the good cheap science has already been done?

No, not at all, but you have to keep in mind that's not the norm with cheap science.

The issue about the paper was not really about reading it. It was about what information you value and want to take out of an applicant. My argument is a big lab person in a big paper would probably have more exposure to various techniques. Someone else added a valuable counterargument that even if a small paper it shows leadership and ability to put together a project.

Typically papers in lower ranked journals come from labs that are not as well funded or have the quality of people. Look at where professors at SFSU typically publish and their techniques and then compare that to a UCSF laboratory.

Again, exceptions exist, but we're talking about generally and what we value in a premed going into medicine. This is entirely on it's own. The same criteria doesn't need to follow for residency, fellow, or jobs as a scientist.

 

[mmmcdowe]

There are other factors than just impact. All neurosurgical journals have low impact, but they have high relevance to the target audience. More neurosurgeons are reading jns than any high impact journal. Ive seen a lot of things that could have made a pass at Stroke, Pediatrics, etc go to JNS because those readers are the ones that you need to convince.

 

[medbunny56]

A pub will always get attention. Will it make up for low GPA or MCAT? No.

do you think someone with a 28 MCAT/3.6 GPA + three 1st author publications + six 1st author abstracts would get some attention to his application?

 

[Lawpy]

do you think someone with a 28 MCAT/3.6 GPA + three 1st author publications + six 1st author abstracts would get some attention to his application?

The problem here is that the research powerhouses that love this type of productivity have matriculant medians well above a 3.6/28 (i.e. 3.8+/36+). And schools with matriculant medians of or near 3.6/28 are more geared towards service to the community and will wonder why that applicant won't pursue a PhD instead.

 

[medbunny56]

The problem here is that the research powerhouses that love this type of productivity have matriculant medians well above a 3.6/28 (i.e. 3.8+/36+). And schools with matriculant medians of or near 3.6/28 are more geared towards service to the community and will wonder why that applicant won't pursue a PhD instead.

So do you think of its still worth a shot to apply to the research schools? Or I can try to retake my MCAT to get it in the 33ish range but not sure if I can and would rather continue my research experience and submitting manuscripts before June

 

[Goro]

If you want to aim high, then a retake is in order. And if you're aiming for Harvard/Pitt/Columbia class schools, you'll need a 516+, not a 513. A 513 will be good for Emory/Mayo/Case class schools. As Lawper pointed out, the Top schools have a glut of top applicants, and they can afford to ignore someone with stats < thier 10th %ile, even with killer pubs. Actually, I suspect that 1000 hours of \ community service for those in need would get their attention even faster.

So do you think of its still worth a shot to apply to the research schools? Or I can try to retake my MCAT to get it in the 33ish range but not sure if I can and would rather continue my research experience and submitting manuscripts before June

 

[SpartanWolverine]

So do you think of its still worth a shot to apply to the research schools? Or I can try to retake my MCAT to get it in the 33ish range but not sure if I can and would rather continue my research experience and submitting manuscripts before June

I think you would have a shot at some decent mid to lower tier schools that value research. I would be surprised if you got attention at top-tier schools since, while your research is impressive, the MCAT is a detriment and the GPA is average.

 

[DameJulie]

What is considered as a high-impact journal? I know CNS definitely are, but what else? Is it based on the impact factor?

 

[medbunny56]

I think you would have a shot at some decent mid to lower tier schools that value research. I would be surprised if you got attention at top-tier schools since, while your research is impressive, the MCAT is a detriment and the GPA is average.

do you have any suggestions for mid/low tiers? Im okay with attending a low tier, I'm just afraid I might do worse on the MCAT retake and would rather try applying with my current stats and research

 

[aldol16]

What is considered as a high-impact journal? I know CNS definitely are, but what else? Is it based on the impact factor?

It's highly discipline-specific, but in the basic sciences, Nature and Science are the most prestigious and have broader readerships. From there, it depends on your field. Cell I know is good for biology papers and Neuron I think is good for neuroscience. For chemistry, the Journal of the American Chemical Society, Nature Chemistry, and Angewandte Chemie are all good journals. There is a good correlation between what's considered "prestigious" in a field and its impact factor, although many journals have high impact factors only because they publish only reviews and so get cited a lot.

 

[DameJulie]

It's highly discipline-specific, but in the basic sciences, Nature and Science are the most prestigious and have broader readerships. From there, it depends on your field. Cell I know is good for biology papers and Neuron I think is good for neuroscience. For chemistry, the Journal of the American Chemical Society, Nature Chemistry, and Angewandte Chemie are all good journals. There is a good correlation between what's considered "prestigious" in a field and its impact factor, although many journals have high impact factors only because they publish only reviews and so get cited a lot.

How about sub-CNS journals such as Nature Communications and Nature Neuroscience? How does a co-author paper in these journals looked upon?

 

[aldol16]

How about sub-CNS journals such as Nature Communications and Nature Neuroscience? How does a co-author paper in these journals looked upon?

Admissions people likely won't be too familiar with field-specific journals unless they're in that field themselves. So the top-tier journals that almost all scientists are familiar with are Science, Nature, and Cell. In neuroscience, Nature Neuroscience is pretty well-reputed, if impact factors are to be trusted. You can look at this as a loose guideline: Journal Rankings on Neuroscience (miscellaneous). Ignore the journals that publish only reviews.