Publication record expected of MD/PhD

I wouldn't feel too good about one mid level journal first author pub as a PhD. Obviously, there are many things in the application that matter so no one can tell you its a death sentence and if you are hard working and things just didn't work out, Im sure you could explain that on interviews. The problem may be getting interviews. Weather its in your control or not the expectation seems to be a little higher. Talk to your PD. If they think you are good they should be able to help you find some projects to work on between now and then. Retrospective clinical pubs are not too hard to come by with a little effort.

Sorry I missed the other questions

More is always better. Thats the life of findings jobs and residencies. In reality, getting published is a combination of hard work, who you know, and dumb luck. However, every dept chair, hiring group, and residency program judges academic potential by your publication record. Two otherwise equally smart and hard-working people with different publication records will almost never be viewed as equal, its all the directors have to chose from. Its just like board scores.

High impact is not required but again really helps. Same as above, getting high impact papers requires really good work or political connections...not everyone has both of these. Neither here nor there, a nature, cell, science, JAMA, NEJM etc type paper will lay out the red carpet at all levels of the game. But you certainly don't need it to get there. A few quality publications can show constant sucess and productivity and go a long way.

A single publication is on the low side for a PhD. And (like all things) it depends on who is doing the judging. People with more basic science background may appreciate the effort that can go into a single basic science publication compared to some clinical studies which are generally easier to produce. I don't think a single publication means you won't match but your application won't stand out at top tier programs.

As far as quality versus quantity, I think often quantity wins out unless they are super well known journals (cell, nature, ect), especially if you are publishing outside of radiation oncology (as they probably don't know what the good journals are in your field). Most interviewers probably don't download your papers; I doubt many even read the abstract if it isn't radiation or oncology. But if they see a long list on the CV it looks good as long as the list doesn't have obvious junk.

Disclaimer I have no inside knowledge other than having been through the application / interview process.

Echod, what I didn't say earlier was apply, apply, apply. I am basing my knowledge on my experience of the process and the opinions of the chairs of Pharmacology (hires post-docs) and Pathology (hires residents) at one major center (worked for them for 5 years) and the PD and other faculty in rad onc at my current institution. Having one paper on its own is not a death sentence and hot sauce is right, plenty of people with be sympathetic if your basic science and you can reasonably explain yourself. You just won't get that chance at a lot of places. If you can't get more pubs before you apply you will get passed up by some programs. But if you have other good stuff in your record programs that value the other things will interview you. In particular, if you have killer board scores (thats the other big way programs screen applications) this likely won't be too much of an issue. You will just have to apply more broadly to get the number of interviews to match. Look at charting the outcomes documents from the AAMC. People with below average board scores match and people with one or no peer-reviewed publications (recall on the charting docs that the pubs charts include abstracts, posters, and publications) match all the time as well.

I don't think what we said was all that different. As I said, with good clinical indicators this likely won't be an issue. At the same time, there are programs that value publications more than others (ie Mich etc) and it will matter to them so people with lower numbers of pubs may just have to apply a little more broadly to get the same number of interviews. And I saw broad not lower because any place could look at any given application and see something, weather it breaks with department tradition or not, and rank them highly. Rather have more interviews and need to cancel than not enough.

Again, I am no attending or PD either, but I am basing this off of what I obvserved a PD (admittedly in path) do for several years and the comments of our current rad onc PD.

From my current experience which is quite limited as I am currently an applicant, it is difficult to predict reliably whether or not having just one first author publication will or will not hurt you. I have learned from this process that each program has subtle differences it is looking for from its prospective resident candidates. I am an MD\PhD with three non RadOnc first author pubs from my PhD, I have good step scores and good grades as well as other RadOnc projects\pubs. What I have found is that having a number of first author pubs from my PhD is simply not enough to get the Harvards, Michigans, Yales etc. From speaking with other MD\PhDs who did get those places, our scores were similar but their pubs were RadOnc, MedOnc or in high impact factor journals. That is what those places are looking for from an MD\PhD. Now with this aside, I have some really good interviews at places just below these giants. So having a PhD will NOT hurt you. I recommend just applying very broadly and you will be surprised at the places you receive interviews from, assuming grades and Step are good.

Echod, only a small minority of people would say your app is a red flag. The issue not so much you as your competition. A good 40 or so applicants will have perfect applications (>240 on boards, almost all honors, top notch letters, AND lots of pubs. Programs can be very picky based on the quality. That being said, the super applicants are not the majority. People with only a couple pubs match all the time. Apply broadly. If you have not done so yet your other option is to kill step 2. Most programs dont care but 250 or highercould be another way to get noticed. Best way to do that is focus on whats in front of you now...your core clerkships.

One publication is better than none, but obviously more is better. PhD carries considerable weight but its important to be well balanced. There's probably 25-35 PhDs applying to rad onc this year. If you are committed to a career in academic medicine and can demonstrate this in your PS and on your interviews you should be okay. Its also important to realize that you can be successful at most programs. Applicants tend to overrate the big names. The key is finding a place which will support your career goals.

Radbio22 said:

From my current experience which is quite limited as I am currently an applicant, it is difficult to predict reliably whether or not having just one first author publication will or will not hurt you. I have learned from this process that each program has subtle differences it is looking for from its prospective resident candidates. I am an MD\PhD with three non RadOnc first author pubs from my PhD, I have good step scores and good grades as well as other RadOnc projects\pubs. What I have found is that having a number of first author pubs from my PhD is simply not enough to get the Harvards, Michigans, Yales etc. From speaking with other MD\PhDs who did get those places, our scores were similar but their pubs were RadOnc, MedOnc or in high impact factor journals. That is what those places are looking for from an MD\PhD. Now with this aside, I have some really good interviews at places just below these giants. So having a PhD will NOT hurt you. I recommend just applying very broadly and you will be surprised at the places you receive interviews from, assuming grades and Step are good.

Click to expand...

Completely agree with my esteemed colleague. I too have a non-rad-onc PhD and have found that simply having a PhD doesn't open doors to Michigan et al. I think that a non-rad-onc PhD enhances an overall application probably as much as do volunteer experiences, teaching experiences, etc. Stated in other words, a PhD does not elevate the rank of your application above that of MD students. Hence, my advice to future mudfud applicants trying to improve their rad onc chances would be to either do rad onc research, or get fantabulous board and clinical rotation scores.