1st authored pubs...

[cmuhooligan]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So I've heard that 5 pubs is a rough rule o' thumb for having a shot at one of the top research internships, but I'm wondering of that 5 how many should be 1st authored? For example, I doubt I will have 5 pubs total, but I should, I hope 🙂, have 2-4 pubs, all of which are 1st authored, in 2nd tier journals. Thoughts?

 

[psychanon]

I dunno, but am also wondering. For what it's worth, a friend of mine matched at a very nice research internship (and got interviews at lots of others) with only one accepted first author paper (albeit at a very high impact journal, and also had some non-first author papers and another 1st author under review). I would think that 4 first author papers would look awfully nice, and certainly better than 5 or 6 non-first author papers.

 

[3dogNite]

I am also interested in hearing opinions on this topic. In particular, how many pubs are necessary for having a good chance at a top neuropsych/research internship? Currently, I have 2 first-authored papers under review by respectable np journals, and one more first-authored paper in prep. I should have 4 additional co-authored papers submitted to np journals by the time I start my Ph.D. program this fall...

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Quality over quantity if it is a top tier journal, but I'd say at least 5 pubs, since people can get on as 3rd author in the first year or two, and then move up to get your stuff out there.

 

[JockNerd]

2 first-authored seems to be the magic number people say--a prof here gave a talk on getting faculty positions and that was his response. What do you mean by "second tier"? The way I've had that explained to me is that there's only really one or two *top* journals in a broader area, and then a bunch of second tier that aren't really any less prestigious, but have a more narrow focus and are really the appropriate choice for some research projects.

But, obviously, 1 Science/Nature is worth 50 Psychological Reports.

I think another thing that really sells it is fundability. If your research is clearly something NIH/NIHM/NSF/NSERC or whatever will jump on, you're in an even better position.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think another thing that really sells it is fundability. If your research is clearly something NIH/NIHM/NSF/NSERC or whatever will jump on, you're in an even better position.

This is often over-looked. I will never be a primary researcher somewhere, though I've been told by a few people that if I ever wanted to go that route my area of research has very good for funding (both on the pharma side and clinical side). Be aware that if you are super niche, places may ask you about the feasibility of opportunity in that area.

 

[LilBunny]

How do you know the caliber of the journals? I'm sure it varies by area, but other than that, what criteria makes a journal regarded as higher than others?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

How do you know the caliber of the journals? I'm sure it varies by area, but other than that, what criteria makes a journal regarded as higher than others?

Ask around in the field. Look at the level of people who get stuff published in it. How often is it published? What kind of journals do you consistently see cited in other people's work? (This one can vary, as some places are quite niche so you are limited). Professors and professionals who have been around can tell you how they would apply (1st choice, 2nd choice, etc).

 

[cmuhooligan]

2 first-authored seems to be the magic number people say--a prof here gave a talk on getting faculty positions and that was his response. What do you mean by "second tier"? The way I've had that explained to me is that there's only really one or two *top* journals in a broader area, and then a bunch of second tier that aren't really any less prestigious, but have a more narrow focus and are really the appropriate choice for some research projects.

But, obviously, 1 Science/Nature is worth 50 Psychological Reports.

I think another thing that really sells it is fundability. If your research is clearly something NIH/NIHM/NSF/NSERC or whatever will jump on, you're in an even better position.

By second tier I meant APA division outlet journals, but not at all as a slam on them, just that their focus is narrower.

 

[PsyDr]

you know the caliber of the journal by its impact factor.




wikipedia impact factor for more info.

 

[xxSmartyPantsxx]

There is a listing, which I have accessible through my school library, called Cabell's Directory of Publishing Opportunities. This directory does not rate the quality of journals, but it does provide information such as acceptance rates, # of in house reviewers, etc.

 

[psychanon]

To access citation reports, check out Journal Citation Reports under Web of Science (your university library probably has a subscription). They're not perfect indicators-- they sometimes vary wildly by year, and certain types of journals (e.g., review journals) tend to be inflated because they're inherently more "citable." But it does give you some idea. I'd say that anything above a 1.0 is a reasonably good journal, anything above a 2 is pretty good, and top journals like JAb and JCCP are around 4.

 

[Ollie123]

I imagine the fact that you have so many first authored articles will count for quite a bit. If all goes well, I will be coming out with more total publications than that, but I'd be thrilled to pull off even 3 first authored articles.

I've been trying to get the research ball rolling early, but we'll see how things pan out. Its so hard for me to figure out what can actually get in press before internship applications with the review process being as long as it is for many journals. Even something submitted 2 years in advance might not be "in press" depending on how many iterations of rejections/revision you have to go through.