1st author...How?

[Leonidas93]

Im having a hard time believing that so many people procure a first author publication as undergrads. I get that its debated as to how many people actually get them but still. I mean assuming we arent talking about Nontrads that have a crazy time advantage, I just dont see how its possible for an undergrad to get a 1st author pub unless maybe they are in a really small lab and/or a really generous PI gives them a premade project. Ive been working part time in a competitive lab for almost a year now, soph - junior, and only know am I starting to even grasp the science of the lab. Firstly, I really had to finish biochem and ochem before I could even start to conceptualize things. Secondly, the science is so specialized I feel like it would take years before i could even start to come up with novel ideas, which is what i associate with first authorship. So how are these kids doing it? Am I doing something wrong? Are these first author traditionals just crazy savants? I mean, schools have to know what it takes to get a first authorship. Sorry for the rantish post, im just feeling inadequate at the moment. Thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Noggin]

Im having a hard time believing that so many people procure a first author publication as undergrads. I get that its debated as to how many people actually get them but still. I mean assuming we arent talking about Nontrads that have a crazy time advantage, I just dont see how its possible for an undergrad to get a 1st author pub unless maybe they are in a really small lab and/or a really generous PI gives them a premade project. Ive been working part time in a competitive lab for almost a year now, soph - junior, and only know am I starting to even grasp the science of the lab. Firstly, I really had to finish biochem and ochem before I could even start to conceptualize things. Secondly, the science is so specialized I feel like it would take years before i could even start to come up with novel ideas, which is what i associate with first authorship. So how are these kids doing it? Am I doing something wrong? Are these first author traditionals just crazy savants? I mean, schools have to know what it takes to get a first authorship. Sorry for the rantish post, im just feeling inadequate at the moment. Thanks

There are some labs that publish a lot of papers and are generous with the authorship. Other labs like mine go for quality over quantity, and really work hard to publish very high-quality research, even if that means going a long time without churning out a paper. It is very rare for a premed to be a first-author on a scientific paper. Remember, SDN is not an accurate sample to gauge what most people have accomplished.

 

[jeghaber]

Undergraduate research grant (that you yourself propose and thus have "intellectual ownership" over) + senior thesis or any equivalent amount of work. Of course, it usually takes time to get to the point where you can start proposing meaningful projects, but if your lab is already doing some cool work, it's not that hard to think of related, but novel things you can do.

Oh, and luck. Lots of it.


EDIT: As a disclaimer, I personally don't have a first author publication that's been accepted; after being rejected from a field top journal, mine is currently under review once more. I started the writing process at the beginning of senior year and don't expect to see it in print until the end of this year/early next year (i.e. this process if LONG). Plus, I've graduated, so even if/when I do get a first author publication, I won't be an undergraduate, despite having completing the work during college. However, since I only started work in my lab after my sophomore year, I can imagine if someone starts earlier than I did and is as fortunate as I had been in having a super supportive lab, they could have an accepted manuscript by the time they graduate. But again, much luck in involved, from choosing a lab, hierarchy within the lab, number of people in the lab (post-docs/graduate/undergrads), type and timing of project, etc. Also, as a side note, despite a few of my friends having secondary author publications, I personally know of none who had first authorships before graduation.

 

[SN12357]

Im having a hard time believing that so many people procure a first author publication as undergrads. I get that its debated as to how many people actually get them but still. I mean assuming we arent talking about Nontrads that have a crazy time advantage, I just dont see how its possible for an undergrad to get a 1st author pub unless maybe they are in a really small lab and/or a really generous PI gives them a premade project. Ive been working part time in a competitive lab for almost a year now, soph - junior, and only know am I starting to even grasp the science of the lab. Firstly, I really had to finish biochem and ochem before I could even start to conceptualize things. Secondly, the science is so specialized I feel like it would take years before i could even start to come up with novel ideas, which is what i associate with first authorship. So how are these kids doing it? Am I doing something wrong? Are these first author traditionals just crazy savants? I mean, schools have to know what it takes to get a first authorship. Sorry for the rantish post, im just feeling inadequate at the moment. Thanks

Bingo.

First authorship is a combination of talent and luck. Luck is a BIG part of it--you have to land in the right lab at the right time with the right PI, and no undergrad has the savvy to suss the factors that make these things more likely to happen.

Most medical school applicants don't have authorships. The fraction of people with authorships who have FIRST authorship is super super low. Don't stress over it.

 

[TheBossDoctor]

People get the impression that a lot of undergrads get 1st author pubs just because lots of SDNers prance around on here saying that they're expecting a first author pub. Most are delusional and haven't let reality set in.

 

[Arbor Vitae]

Sleeping with the PI seemed to work in my lab for one of the students.

 

[gobigorgohome22]

People get the impression that a lot of undergrads get 1st author pubs just because lots of SDNers prance around on here saying that they're expecting a first author pub. Most are delusional and haven't let reality set in.

Not necessary true. Im sure a significant portion of SDN that say that they have 1st pubs do actually have them (I have 2). My 1st author publications are not in reputable journals, BUT they are still 1st author publications in scientific peer-reviewed journals. My PI had nothing to do with my publication other than providing me with an interesting project and looking over my manuscript before I submitted it. You have to take the initiative. No one will just randomly put your name on a publication.

 

[QrtrLifeCrisis]

Im having a hard time believing that so many people procure a first author publication as undergrads. I get that its debated as to how many people actually get them but still. I mean assuming we arent talking about Nontrads that have a crazy time advantage, I just dont see how its possible for an undergrad to get a 1st author pub unless maybe they are in a really small lab and/or a really generous PI gives them a premade project. Ive been working part time in a competitive lab for almost a year now, soph - junior, and only know am I starting to even grasp the science of the lab. Firstly, I really had to finish biochem and ochem before I could even start to conceptualize things. Secondly, the science is so specialized I feel like it would take years before i could even start to come up with novel ideas, which is what i associate with first authorship. So how are these kids doing it? Am I doing something wrong? Are these first author traditionals just crazy savants? I mean, schools have to know what it takes to get a first authorship. Sorry for the rantish post, im just feeling inadequate at the moment. Thanks

Many nontrads don't have this so-called "crazy time advantage" so we're not your competitors. In fact, I barely just completed my premed prereqs this past May with zero bench research time.

It's the other crazy trad students you have to worry about.

Anyway, to address your question -- many students get first authorship by publishing their senior thesis.

 

[nabilesmail]

Nontrads have time advantages with jobs and such. 3 years working fulltime as a ..... is like thousands of hours

 

[QrtrLifeCrisis]

Nontrads have time advantages with jobs and such. 3 years working fulltime as a ..... is like thousands of hours

That's true. But that doesn't mean that all nontrads were doing bench research before they decided to apply to medical school. Think of the English major who went back and did a post-bac.

 

[Body Habitus]

As someone with 1 co-first authorship as a senior, lots of work (mostly over the summer) and a low impact journal. In fact, it was a methods paper. Still peer reviewed, and the PI was incredibly generous and awesome to pay the publishing fee (and be so supportive). Also, worked with an EM resident who was md/phd and she said she did about the same thing which was her only publication before going to an ivy for mstp. So I'd say 1) reasonable research goal (youre not getting a high pact paper) 2) generous and supportive lab PI and 3) hard work. I also had a technical skill which was important to the success of the project. You also dont need a first author pub, the guy I replaced in a research lab for gap year was something like 6th author and had like 5 mstp acceptances (though he had lots of other non-published research). Also, I agree with the above poster referencing type of lab. There are labs that churn out many low impact journals (these are often clinical labs) vs ones that hold onto bits different pieces and make a more complete story to shoot for higher impact journals. My lab really was a mix because it was pretty big and worked in a lot of unique areas because it was engineering.

 

[inycepoo]

I'll pitch in my two cents. See, I don't work in basic science. Never have (except a brief stint in HS), never will. It's just not my style of work or interest at all. My choice instead is health services research, which is very conducive to having newbies step in and possibly publish first authorships or even be involved in a high-impact project. There's still a learning curve, but less so than bench where you have to learn protocols and all that BS from scratch. Here, it's more of 1) where do I get data, 2) how do I analyze it, and 3) what is interesting/ground-breaking about it and how can I influence policy or standard of practice? Projects much more quickly than in bench, so the luck factor of getting involved at the right point in time is less of an issue.

That being said, I am fortunate in that I joined the research group early (December of freshman year) and the PI and postdocs and medical students were very open to having me take on responsibility after I passed a few of the initial hurdles they threw at me.

Fast forward 1.5 years, and I'm 4th author on a paper in review with another solicited paper from JAMA (either 2nd or 3rd, TBD). Got a couple of other gigs in the making, but I finally worked up enough balls to propose my own project for this coming year, and will start working on it next month.

So yes, I also believe that most of people on SDN who say they have a first authorship actually do so. Maybe a couple here or there are exaggerating, but it's really not outrageous, especially if it's not bench research.

That being said, SDN is self-selecting and not representative of what most med applicants have, so don't worry.

 

[A7X]

Sleeping with the PI seemed to work in my lab for one of the students.

Haha seriously?

 

[Arbor Vitae]

Haha seriously?

yes, dead serious, nobody else got 1st author but the student who was sleeping with the prof, it's an ongoing hr issue, glad I got the **** out. His ex wife is also faculty and they got divorced because of it. his kids went to the school too. it's a mess

 

[ScholarStud]

My lab is quite generous. I think the good luck in coming across such a lab in combination with proving yourself is key to a first author pub. Every PI is different.

 

[IslandStyle808]

As someone with 1 co-first authorship as a senior, lots of work (mostly over the summer) and a low impact journal. In fact, it was a methods paper. Still peer reviewed, and the PI was incredibly generous and awesome to pay the publishing fee. I worked with an EM resident who was md/phd and she said she did about the same thing which was her only publication before going to an ivy for mstp. So I'd say 1) reasonable research goal (youre not getting a high pact paper) 2) generous and supportive lab PI and 3) hard work. I also had a technical skill which was important to the success of the project. You also dont need a first author pub, the guy I replaced in a research lab for gap year was something like 6th author and had like 5 mstp acceptances. Also, I hugely agree with the above poster referencing type of lab. There are labs that churn out many low impact journals (these are oftenbut not always clinical oriented labs) vs ones that hold onto bits of the story the research creates and shoot for higher impact journals. My lab really was a mix because it was pretty big and worked in a lot of unique areas because it was biomed engineering. Sorry for poor formatting, on a phone.

Usually they are that generous plus the PIs name is also on the paper so they benefit (I am referring to peer reviewed journals in general).

 

[zippyziggy]

yes, dead serious, nobody else got 1st author but the student who was sleeping with the prof, it's an ongoing hr issue, glad I got the **** out. His ex wife is also faculty and they got divorced because of it. his kids went to the school too. it's a mess

haha we suspect something like that happened in my previous lab too...the girl was super lazy, totally off her game, but extremely attractive. she got a first authorship in a review article that she could not have written. and later, my PI got divorced (his secretary implied he cheated on his wife, several times) and moved institutions. rumors, hearsay, but possibly true.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

An important thing to realize is that a lot of people on SDN who claim to have 1st author publications are actually referring to first author poster abstracts "published" in a conference handout, which are definitely not publications. Of the remaining people with real publications, many of them have clinical research publications which are much easier to produce than basic research publications. So even on SDN there aren't a whole lot of published people, although the number here is still higher than what you'll see on the interview trail.

Anyway, I've got two first author basic science pubs. From my experiences, there are a few factors at play in how likely you are to get a first author pub:
- The type of project you're working on (some research areas allow you to practically mass-produce papers as long as you can keep getting results; others require years of hard work just to scrounge up a low impact pub)
- The subject you're working on (if it's on your level, you stand a better chance of making a significant intellectual contribution; if it's a subject beyond your current abilities, good luck)
- How involved you are in the project (need to be doing the bulk of the work and writing the paper)
- How early you start (expect a minimum of two years on the same project for a publication, realistically 3+)
- The kind of lab you're in (a lab with an army of grad students is unlikely to have anything left over for an undergrad; a lab with few to no grad students is forced to use undergrads as a substitute)
- How much your PI likes you (if your PI likes you as a friend and not just a good worker, your chances of getting a pub skyrocket; if your PI despises you, you'll never get a pub)
- Luck (on the right project in the right lab at the right time, experiments are a success and not abysmal failures, PI doesn't die or get arrested for murdering his wife, etc.)

It is possible to get a publication in undergrad and have truly earned it. Grad students usually have papers (note the plural) by the time they get their PhDs, and they only had about 3-5 years of dedicated research time to get them. The tricky thing is that as an undergrad you don't know much science yet, you don't know how to do research, and you don't know how to play lab politics. The kids with papers are usually the ones who get started doing research early (1st or 2nd year of college), are driven to put their research above everything else (even GPA), catch on quick, and make very good impressions in the lab. They're also typically pre-PhD or pre-MD/PhD. It's been my observation that pre-MDs are too busy juggling a dozen different ECs to properly dedicate themselves to a lab, and they usually aren't interested enough in research to do what it takes to see a project through to publication.

 

[Arbor Vitae]

An important thing to realize is that...

Yeah, the real way PIs see it is that they are wasting their money and grad students' time to train you, so you really don't deserve anything unless you end up being somebody who shows passion, can produce data for them, and that they actually like. If you work under a grad student that likes you, they will most likely put you as a lower author on their paper which is pretty damn good for an undergrad. If it's a small lab or you really show true potential you might be able to get a first author, otherwise try and get on a project with somebody who publishes frequently. Use google scholar to look up the names of PIs and grad students to see how many papers they have and how many people they put on the paper. Find a lab that has solid funding. Don't be afraid to change labs if the vibe is negative and/or it's not an environment that you like working in. There are so many BS factors that go into publishing that med schools definitely don't expect it, but if you manage to be that productive as an undergrad or can jump through the hoops to get published, there is really not a lot that you can't do.

 

[khrisskhoras]

Sleeping with the PI seemed to work in my lab for one of the students.

Did this student give an oral presentation of her work?

 

[LuciusVorenus]

An important thing to realize is that a lot of people on SDN who claim to have 1st author publications are actually referring to first author poster abstracts "published" in a conference handout, which are definitely not publications. Of the remaining people with real publications, many of them have clinical research publications which are much easier to produce than basic research publications. So even on SDN there aren't a whole lot of published people, although the number here is still higher than what you'll see on the interview trail.

This is how I did it as well. Getting a first author pub in physics, math, chemistry, or biology is pretty hard for the reasons OP stated - it takes a year or two just to get caught up with the background science much less being able to create a novel experiment and getting the funding to carry it out and publish it.

On the other hand, clinical publications and to some extent engineering publications are easier because the science behind them does not have to be AS complicated. Additionally, there is less "grunt" work to be done in these labs so the chances that you'll get pushed into doing mindless bench work is really reduced. In labs like these the worst they could push onto you is data collection - even then data collection is sometimes enough to get on the authorship list since it tends to be more involved (auditing charts and observing patients vs running gels all night).

However, sometimes you'll land in a basic science lab where the professor has already run a set of experiments and has a load of data stored somewhere. If you look through this data and find some interesting trends or correlations of your own that were not addressed in the PI's paper you can easily approach them about using the data to write a paper of your own.

 

[Spitphire]

did this student give an oral presentation of her work?

zing!

 

[phunky]

I'm a nontrad (take 2 years off), and I'll probably have a first authorship by the time I'm in medical school. It depends on your research group. Mine is very oriented towards teaching the research assistants and getting them valuable experiences. They try to get everyone a first authorship during their 2-year tenure.

 

[zippyziggy]

The kids with papers are usually the ones who get started doing research early (1st or 2nd year of college), are driven to put their research above everything else (even GPA), catch on quick, and make very good impressions in the lab.

not to hijack this thread, but i'd just like to briefly note that this is where URM or low SES students are disadvantaged - most people who get pubs in undergrad have parents who are doctors or scientists, have experience with research in high school, and hence have an early start in knowing how to negotiate lab politics and do decent science.

 

[jeghaber]

not to hijack this thread, but i'd just like to briefly note that this is where URM or low SES students are disadvantaged - most people who get pubs in undergrad have parents who are doctors or scientists, have experience with research in high school, and hence have an early start in knowing how to negotiate lab politics and do decent science.

False.

 

[Euxox]

I have a first author pub in a low-impact journal. This came after three years of research at the same lab. There are five factors that I think contributed to me getting first author on the paper:

1. This was an engineering lab, not a basic science lab. Engineering research tends to be more incremental than basic science, in my opinion, so I think it is easier for undergrads to complete publishable engineering work by themselves.
2. I was the only undergrad in the lab; there wasn't a lot of interest in engineering research at my undergrad institution. It was also a small lab (only five graduate students), so I got plenty of one-on-one time with the PI.
3. I won multiple research grants. They're not that hard to get, really, if you have a good GPA and some aptitude for writing research proposals. The nice thing about undergraduate research grants is that they are usually given for you to pursue a hypothesis of your own choosing. Now in reality, most undergrads aren't knowledgeable enough to be able to come up with a workable hypothesis by themselves. What happens more frequently is that the undergrad will choose a hypothesis in conjunction with his or her PI and then do the requisite background research and write up the research proposal. This is exactly what happened with me.
4. I was initially assigned to work with a grad student, but he was very close to defending his thesis, and as time went on, he started to get busier and busier with preparing for his defense. As a result, I had to work alone on much of the project, and I ended up doing about 75% to 80% of the total work. When it came time to decide who would be first author on the paper, this made me a natural choice.
5. My PI was just nice. I never asked to be first author, and my PI could have easily decided that he wanted the grad student to be first author. I wouldn't have argued.

 

[La Presse]

Now, a coauthor is a completely different story...

 

[Vans42]

Im having a hard time believing that so many people procure a first author publication as undergrads. I get that its debated as to how many people actually get them but still. I mean assuming we arent talking about Nontrads that have a crazy time advantage, I just dont see how its possible for an undergrad to get a 1st author pub unless maybe they are in a really small lab and/or a really generous PI gives them a premade project. Ive been working part time in a competitive lab for almost a year now, soph - junior, and only know am I starting to even grasp the science of the lab. Firstly, I really had to finish biochem and ochem before I could even start to conceptualize things. Secondly, the science is so specialized I feel like it would take years before i could even start to come up with novel ideas, which is what i associate with first authorship. So how are these kids doing it? Am I doing something wrong? Are these first author traditionals just crazy savants? I mean, schools have to know what it takes to get a first authorship. Sorry for the rantish post, im just feeling inadequate at the moment. Thanks

Hm yeah, that's pretty tough. I am taking 2 gap years and at some point I will have a first-author paper out (not in time to actually put it on an app, but it will probably be sent to journals for review next year/late this year). It may be possible to get first authorship in undergrad if you get summer research fellowships or began working there early. I also worked in a lab as an undergrad but I presented at our undergraduate research conference as a first author, but definitely not on a paper. I think what is most important is how much you get out of the experience, and although I will have authorships on 3/4 papers by the time I matriculate (first author on one), the experience is what mattered most. I also got two killer LOR from it. It also depends on your ability to sell yourself and describe what you learned. If a person only puts a paper on there app without describing what they learned from it, it probably isn't as useful.

*** Just an Edit: my PI is awesome.

 

[zippyziggy]

False.

whoa, that completely refuted my argument!!

 

[Arbor Vitae]

not to hijack this thread, but i'd just like to briefly note that this is where URM or low SES students are disadvantaged - most people who get pubs in undergrad have parents who are doctors or scientists, have experience with research in high school, and hence have an early start in knowing how to negotiate lab politics and do decent science.

this is one of the biggest loads of poop I've ever came across on SDN.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

not to hijack this thread, but i'd just like to briefly note that this is where URM or low SES students are disadvantaged - most people who get pubs in undergrad have parents who are doctors or scientists, have experience with research in high school, and hence have an early start in knowing how to negotiate lab politics and do decent science.

I have two 1st author pubs. No one in my family has a graduate degree; my dad has a BA from a state school, and my mom dropped out of junior college after a year. In fact, if it weren't for one cousin I've never met, I would be the first person in my entire extended family's history to do anything related to science for a career. I didn't do any research in high school; I even went so far as to avoid the "advanced" science classes so that I didn't have to do the science fair projects.

I wouldn't say anything you said puts a person at a disadvantage. Low SES students are at a disadvantage, but mainly because their low SES status forces them to work while school which cuts into time they can spend on research. I'm not going to touch the URM thing because SDN.

 

[Goro]

Me too. It's hard enough for ANYONE to get a paper, and in my experience, UGs are more trouble than they're worth in the lab, so I refuse to take them.

Being a first author means the person did the most significant amount of work on the project, and mostly likely wrote the first draft of the manuscript.

So, then next time you hear about a UG being first author, check it out on Pubmed.

Im having a hard time believing that so many people procure a first author publication as undergrads. I get that its debated as to how many people actually get them but still. I mean assuming we arent talking about Nontrads that have a crazy time advantage, I just dont see how its possible for an undergrad to get a 1st author pub unless maybe they are in a really small lab and/or a really generous PI gives them a premade project. Ive been working part time in a competitive lab for almost a year now, soph - junior, and only know am I starting to even grasp the science of the lab.

 

[inycepoo]

Me too. It's hard enough for ANYONE to get a paper, and in my experience, UGs are more trouble than they're worth in the lab, so I refuse to take them.

Being a first author means the person did the most significant amount of work on the project, and mostly likely wrote the first draft of the manuscript.

So, then next time you hear about a UG being first author, check it out on Pubmed.

PIs like you are exactly why it's "hard enough for anyone to get a paper" and why some students have a lot of trouble getting into a lab to see if it's something they'd enjoy. Just because you haven't had anyone special join your lab doesn't mean that all undergrads are bumbling bozos.

 

[plumhill]

An important thing to realize is that a lot of people on SDN who claim to have 1st author publications are actually referring to first author poster abstracts "published" in a conference handout, which are definitely not publications.

As someone who has multiple first-author abstract "publications," should I even list them in my application in the section where I talk about research, or would listing it make me look like I'm trying to beef up my application too much?

 

[SN12357]

As someone who has multiple first-author abstract "publications," should I even list them in my application in the section where I talk about research, or would listing it make me look like I'm trying to beef up my application too much?

Yes, list them. They are still publications. They rank below full research articles in peer-reviewed journals, but they are publications and it is not weird or 'beefing up' your application to list them.

Look at any established professor's cv. Abstracts and original research articles are always listed separately to clearly distinguish them, but they're still listed!

 

[zippyziggy]

this is one of the biggest loads of poop I've ever came across on SDN.

sorry, you're right - i probably shouldn't have generalized to say that "most people who get pubs in undergrad are yadda yadda yadda" - though it's still true for every single case i can think of - and i've done research for over 6 years. maybe that's because i went to a private school with a significant majority of kids who fall under that category. but even then, i can't think of a way that undergrads can otherwise have a first author pub by the time they apply to med school, unless it's through the aforementioned reasons of extraordinary luck, crap journal, etc.

i still stand by my argument about SES and less-so, URMs. seriously, how does anyone not think that low SES is a disadvantage? not only do you have to juggle your economic situation, but you don't have any mentors, you get terrible advice from people who don't know how to navigate higher education, and your mindset is completely different. you don't even think about being a doctor, or doing research, or whatever. i always wonder if people on SDN don't have close friends from low-SES backgrounds or are URMs.

I have two 1st author pubs. No one in my family has a graduate degree; my dad has a BA from a state school, and my mom dropped out of junior college after a year.

i'm pretty sure you're the exception, not the rule. at any case, you don't really qualify as low SES (not that you implied that or anything), but that's what i'm arguing - you don't see a kid from a low SES having a 1st author pub in undergrad. and of those who have a 1st author pub, most, but not all, have had a head start in science in some way.

I wouldn't say anything you said puts a person at a disadvantage. Low SES students are at a disadvantage, but mainly because their low SES status forces them to work while school which cuts into time they can spend on research.

um, didn't i say that low SES puts a person at a disadvantage? and didn't you just agree with me?

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

um, didn't i say that low SES puts a person at a disadvantage? and didn't you just agree with me?

I could have worded that sentence better. What I meant is that parents not being scientists/doctors and not doing research in high school doesn't put you at a disadvantage. Being low SES puts you at a disadvantage for other reasons than what you said, and does being URM.

Also, FWIW, I've known a lot of people who were the sons/daughters of scientists and doctors. Most of them were pretty abysmal students too, and not just in research. I'm sure that being the child of a scientist or academic physician could be a big boon to a kid's research CV, but my experience has been that few such kids take advantage of that.

Like I said, the kids getting pubs are usually pre-PhD students. Not only are they more inclined toward research, but professors give pre-PhDs a lot more love than pre-meds. Back when I was still planning on applying to PhD programs I had more than a few professors (including the chair of my major department) tell me they were only doing various things for me because I was pre-grad and not pre-med.

 

[zippyziggy]

What I meant is that parents not being scientists/doctors and not doing research in high school doesn't put you at a disadvantage.

yeah, i agree. it makes you average. low SES puts you at a disadvantage, and high SES puts you at an advantage.

Being low SES puts you at a disadvantage for other reasons than what you said, and does being URM.

note that in my original post, i never explicitly gave reasons that being from a low SES puts you at a disadvantage. i did imply that lack of role models/mentorship contributes to it, which is true. and something that is often underestimated by people who don't come from that background (kind of like what happens with white people trying to understand URMs).

I'm sure that being the child of a scientist or academic physician could be a big boon to a kid's research CV, but my experience has been that few such kids take advantage of that.

sure, but we're not talking about that here. in probability terms, given that person A has a first author pub as an undergrad, what is the likelihood of them coming from a high SES background? - not given a high SES background, what is the likelihood of them having a first authorship?.

Like I said, the kids getting pubs are usually pre-PhD students. Not only are they more inclined toward research, but professors give pre-PhDs a lot more love than pre-meds. Back when I was still planning on applying to PhD programs I had more than a few professors (including the chair of my major department) tell me they were only doing various things for me because I was pre-grad and not pre-med.

yeah you're probably right. but then again, my point is - if you're from a low SES, how the heck do you even get the idea of doing a PhD?

 

[Espadaleader]

I am doing a research gap-year. I will have a collection of co-authorships and may have a first authorship. I am in a epidemiology/clinical research lab so that makes it ALOT easier.

First authorship really requires PURE knowledge and knowhow. Writing a manuscript is hard. I am writing a paper on data from a former student's project to be published and my PI is being nice and letting me draft it.... It's still crazy.

Now I know some ppl that worked in a lab in HS and then through undergrad and published first author and some freakishly smart ppl who just worked hard/had great PIs

I know I am rambling but here me out. To those that don't have publications having one is a BIG deal. Having a coauthor in Science/Cell/JAMA/NEJM is a BIG deal. Having a first author as a traditional undergrad in ANY journal is out of this world. If you are a gap year person doing a research gig etc. it is still awesome.

 

[IslandStyle808]

I could have worded that sentence better. What I meant is that parents not being scientists/doctors and not doing research in high school doesn't put you at a disadvantage. Being low SES puts you at a disadvantage for other reasons than what you said, and does being URM.

Also, FWIW, I've known a lot of people who were the sons/daughters of scientists and doctors. Most of them were pretty abysmal students too, and not just in research. I'm sure that being the child of a scientist or academic physician could be a big boon to a kid's research CV, but my experience has been that few such kids take advantage of that.

Like I said, the kids getting pubs are usually pre-PhD students. Not only are they more inclined toward research, but professors give pre-PhDs a lot more love than pre-meds. Back when I was still planning on applying to PhD programs I had more than a few professors (including the chair of my major department) tell me they were only doing various things for me because I was pre-grad and not pre-med.

Concur very strongly on this one.

I am doing a research gap-year. I will have a collection of co-authorships and may have a first authorship. I am in a epidemiology/clinical research lab so that makes it ALOT easier.

First authorship really requires PURE knowledge and knowhow. Writing a manuscript is hard. I am writing a paper on data from a former student's project to be published and my PI is being nice and letting me draft it.... It's still crazy.

Now I know some ppl that worked in a lab in HS and then through undergrad and published first author and some freakishly smart ppl who just worked hard/had great PIs

I know I am rambling but here me out. To those that don't have publications having one is a BIG deal. Having a coauthor in Science/Cell/JAMA/NEJM is a BIG deal. Having a first author as a traditional undergrad in ANY journal is out of this world. If you are a gap year person doing a research gig etc. it is still awesome.

Concur also. Even having a first authorship in any journal is huge.

I am currently trying to publish a review article (as a post-bacc student) and I thought the hard part was writing the thing. After having my manuscript checked by 5 reviewers, I actually think the easy part was the first draft. Well, hope this thing gets published sometime soon.

 

[music2doc]

Im having a hard time believing that so many people procure a first author publication as undergrads. I get that its debated as to how many people actually get them but still. I mean assuming we arent talking about Nontrads that have a crazy time advantage, I just dont see how its possible for an undergrad to get a 1st author pub unless maybe they are in a really small lab and/or a really generous PI gives them a premade project. Ive been working part time in a competitive lab for almost a year now, soph - junior, and only know am I starting to even grasp the science of the lab. Firstly, I really had to finish biochem and ochem before I could even start to conceptualize things. Secondly, the science is so specialized I feel like it would take years before i could even start to come up with novel ideas, which is what i associate with first authorship. So how are these kids doing it? Am I doing something wrong? Are these first author traditionals just crazy savants? I mean, schools have to know what it takes to get a first authorship. Sorry for the rantish post, im just feeling inadequate at the moment. Thanks

Clearly you're not going to have a first author pub...and that's okay.

Some of us did have one as UGs. As was said, it's a combination of talent and luck. I will say much of the talent is NOT in terms of research ability but in terms of networking and interpersonal skills. You need to be effective at finding the right people and then be ready to spring at whatever opportunity manages to come your way.

 

[zippyziggy]

also, keep in mind that there is a huge difference between different "types" of first authorships, and adcoms know the difference. a first authorship in basic science in any journal as an undergrad is a huge deal. a first author review is pretty much up to your PI. a first author epi/clinical/outcomes-based paper is less of a huge deal, but still pretty great. a first author paper in the big three as an undergrad (or as any premed, for that matter) is as rare as a 45 MCAT.

 

[mwall003]

Go to a school known for their outstanding opportunities for undergraduates to participate in research.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/undergrad-research-programs

I go to one of these schools and we don't have graduate students (Masters level students, but no Ph.D students in the Sciences). The school also recruits faculty that are passionate about teaching undergraduates and involving them in meaningful research. I began research almost immediately upon entering undergrad and it was a basic science research laboratory. After four years of research (and working my butt off) I came out with several publications with a couple first-author publications in good journals. Also was able to present throughout my undergrad at international conferences.

If you're truly interested in research as an undergrad I suggest you go to one of these schools listed in the above link. Going to schools with tons of graduate students will only place you at the bottom of the totem pole, so to speak, when it comes time to amount of responsibility and level of involvement each student receives. This in turn, pretty much shuts the door on any type of first-author publication. I'm sure there are exceptions, but going to a school with a primary undergraduate focus will give you a better research experience in my opinion.

Edit: spent two summers continuing my project and put in at least 20 hours a week during the school year.

 

[LuciusVorenus]

not to hijack this thread, but i'd just like to briefly note that this is where URM or low SES students are disadvantaged - most people who get pubs in undergrad have parents who are doctors or scientists, have experience with research in high school, and hence have an early start in knowing how to negotiate lab politics and do decent science.

I don't know...

I went to a pretty highly ranked public school that was full of white/asian upper middle class kids and out of these hundreds of kids (many of whom went to ivy league schools) barely even a dozen of them were engaged in research in high school.

I think you're overestimating how common this is...

 

[inycepoo]

Go to a school known for their outstanding opportunities for undergraduates to participate in research.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/undergrad-research-programs

I go to one of these schools and we don't have graduate students (Masters level students, but no Ph.D students in the Sciences). The school also recruits faculty that are passionate about teaching undergraduates and involving them in meaningful research. I began research almost immediately upon entering undergrad and it was a basic science research laboratory. After four years of research (and working my butt off) I came out with several publications with a couple first-author publications in good journals. Also was able to present throughout my undergrad at international conferences.

If you're truly interested in research as an undergrad I suggest you go to one of these schools listed in the above link. Going to schools with tons of graduate students will only place you at the bottom of the totem pole, so to speak, when it comes time to amount of responsibility and level of involvement each student receives. This in turn, pretty much shuts the door on any type of first-author publication. I'm sure there are exceptions, but going to a school with a primary undergraduate focus will give you a better research experience in my opinion.

Edit: spent two summers continuing my project and put in at least 20 hours a week during the school year.

Your first mistake: using USNWR.

Your second mistake: Generalizations. I don't know how the hell Harvard made its way onto that list if it's supposed to represent schools that don't have tons of grad students, but my own Ivy institution is crawling with PhD students, yet undergrads in science get publications very frequently because our PIs generally trust to give us responsibility and stretch our potentials. Sure, we have more of an undergrad focus than say, Harvard, but an Ivy is an Ivy, and grad focus will always be there. Doesn't hurt us undergrads as much as you'd think it would.

 

[mwall003]

Your first mistake: using USNWR.

Your second mistake: Generalizations. I don't know how the hell Harvard made its way onto that list if it's supposed to represent schools that don't have tons of grad students, but my own Ivy institution is crawling with PhD students, yet undergrads in science get publications very frequently because our PIs generally trust to give us responsibility and stretch our potentials. Sure, we have more of an undergrad focus than say, Harvard, but an Ivy is an Ivy, and grad focus will always be there. Doesn't hurt us undergrads as much as you'd think it would.

It's just my experience I'm reporting. No need to get offensive here.

You didn't take the time to read my previous post, otherwise you would have noticed the list doesn't represent schools that don't have tons of grad students. The list highlights schools that give their undergraduates the best creative project/undergraduate research opportunities. I simply stated my school doesn't have many graduate students. If you took the time to read the USNWR description of the list, it states that the work generally results in a publication or off-campus presentation. While I agree USNWR is not the best source, it's a decent place to start when looking at what schools offer what. I think this list is better than the general USNWR top schools list because this list is gathered through polling over 1,500 schools' administrators to submit schools they believe offer the best undergraduate research experience.

 

[zippyziggy]

I don't know...

I went to a pretty highly ranked public school that was full of white/asian upper middle class kids and out of these hundreds of kids (many of whom went to ivy league schools) barely even a dozen of them were engaged in research in high school.

I think you're overestimating how common this is...

yeah i admit that i probably exaggerated that point.

 

[inycepoo]

also, keep in mind that there is a huge difference between different "types" of first authorships, and adcoms know the difference. a first authorship in basic science in any journal as an undergrad is a huge deal. a first author review is pretty much up to your PI. a first author epi/clinical/outcomes-based paper is less of a huge deal, but still pretty great. a first author paper in the big three as an undergrad (or as any premed, for that matter) is as rare as a 45 MCAT.

Says who? (Disclaimer: I work in outcomes research.) This whole basic science superiority complex needs to stop. Without translational and outcomes research, basic science matters little. The two cannot exist separately, so why all the attitude? Just because something takes longer does not necessarily mean that it's harder, more impressive, or more prestigious.

Outcomes research done properly will have a much higher impact than most basic science endeavors. For premeds, it's a chance to get involved in really meaningful research early on in college, as the learning curve isn't that steep, but the work is challenging.

Granted, such research is really best found at large, private, research institutions, and thus isn't an option for all. However, a first-author is a first-author. It's not any less of a big deal.

 

[zippyziggy]

Says who? (Disclaimer: I work in outcomes research.) This whole basic science superiority complex needs to stop. Without translational and outcomes research, basic science matters little. The two cannot exist separately, so why all the attitude? Just because something takes longer does not necessarily mean that it's harder, more impressive, or more prestigious.

Outcomes research done properly will have a much higher impact than most basic science endeavors. For premeds, it's a chance to get involved in really meaningful research early on in college, as the learning curve isn't that steep, but the work is challenging.

Granted, such research is really best found at large, private, research institutions, and thus isn't an option for all. However, a first-author is a first-author. It's not any less of a big deal.

well it's less of a huge deal because it's more common, easier to publish, and takes a shorter amount of time to publish. yeah sure it can be more impactful - it wasn't a value judgment at all. i did outcomes research once too, you know, and will do it again this coming year.

 

[LuciusVorenus]

Says who? (Disclaimer: I work in outcomes research.) This whole basic science superiority complex needs to stop. Without translational and outcomes research, basic science matters little. The two cannot exist separately, so why all the attitude? Just because something takes longer does not necessarily mean that it's harder, more impressive, or more prestigious.

Outcomes research done properly will have a much higher impact than most basic science endeavors. For premeds, it's a chance to get involved in really meaningful research early on in college, as the learning curve isn't that steep, but the work is challenging.

Granted, such research is really best found at large, private, research institutions, and thus isn't an option for all. However, a first-author is a first-author. It's not any less of a big deal.

I think it's funny that a group of people wanting to become doctors think publishing in Peds or NEJM isn't as important as publishing in J. Biol. Chem.

The worst is the superiority complex physics/math researchers have when it comes to talking about engineering publications.