Can Undergrads Publish Solo Research

[kangarooo]

Let's say I have an experiment that requires very little capital and a professor lets me use her lab equipment. However, I write a very professional study. Is there any way that this could be published? And by published I mean through a reputable source.

mydogsblog.org doesn't work

I'm not saying it can't be a website, but it has to be reputable.

I guess what I'm asking is do you need to have any degree to publish something?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[intangible]

No, you don't need a degree.

Most of the bigger schools have their own undergraduate research journals. You might want to start there, if you go to a bigger school.

 

[mmmcdowe]

Without the professor who you are their materials? No, they would need to be included on the paper for a few reasons (you can still be lead author). First, why would they use their resources and lab space with no compensation? Unless you're paying them out of pocket the only compensation is authorship. Second, you might argue that you could provide them free labor on the side for their projects, but that means you're now a lab member and as a member of the PI's lab they are entitled to be on the paper since they are supervising you. Third, pedigree matters. The reason a professor needs to be on the paper is the fact that they are putting their name out there by saying that the manuscript conveys data that was honestly collected and that it was done in a scientifically valid way. They are essentially putting their name and their degree at stake by doing so, which gives a level of authority that can't be equaled by a student with no degree, no lab, and little to nothing at stake. That being said, I have seen a medical student once publish a case report with no senior author. It always struck me as bizarre because clearly there were others involved in the care of the patient, and it is somewhat dishonest not to include the attending who actually was responsible for the clinical outcome...

 

[TorpedoVegas38]

keep in mind that publishing fees can be pretty expensive even for a small paper in a small journal

 

[Lucca]

Usually how this works is 1) you write a proposal for a research grant. (From the university or an organization that gives money to undergrads) 2) you find a prof to sponsor you if you can pay for yourself with a grant and them for their equipment/time because there is a 0.5% chance a publishable project is simple enough to need no input or help from anyone other than an undergrad (or you're a brilliant scientist, who knows) and then 3) you wait for the grant to be approved and then get to work.

At my university if you can provide an itemized budget, faculty support, and the appearance of at least semi knowing what you are talking about you can probably get 1-5k approved. It's the faculty support bit and knowing what you are talking about part that are hard.

 

[RedPhys]

My friend published his own research as an undergraduate. As far as I know (I saw a draft he submitted to a journal), he was the sole author, though he did mention the PI he discussed the research with in the Acknowledgement section.

 

[lumpyduster]

That's generally not how research works at this level. Even grad students don't get to decide what they will research - the PI decides what will be studied. It's possible if you have a cheap, easily done experiment that a PI will think that's cute and let you use their light microscope or whatever, but that's not the best route to get published. See if there's a lab that does research on what you're interested in. If your idea is good and the PI gets interested then maybe it will work out.

Otherwise the road to a publication is often long and tedious. My work just got published in JACS last year after maybe a year of work on the project. The longer I worked on it the more I thought my PI gave it to me as a practical joke because it was such an insane idea and it seemed so unfeasible. "Oh let's see how long the little undergrad struggles until he gives up." Jokes on him now 😉

 

[llamasarefuzzy]

Without the professor who you are their materials? No, they would need to be included on the paper for a few reasons (you can still be lead author). First, why would they use their resources and lab space with no compensation? Unless you're paying them out of pocket the only compensation is authorship. Second, you might argue that you could provide them free labor on the side for their projects, but that means you're now a lab member and as a member of the PI's lab they are entitled to be on the paper since they are supervising you. Third, pedigree matters. The reason a professor needs to be on the paper is the fact that they are putting their name out there by saying that the manuscript conveys data that was honestly collected and that it was done in a scientifically valid way. They are essentially putting their name and their degree at stake by doing so, which gives a level of authority that can't be equaled by a student with no degree, no lab, and little to nothing at stake. That being said, I have seen a medical student once publish a case report with no senior author. It always struck me as bizarre because clearly there were others involved in the care of the patient, and it is somewhat dishonest not to include the attending who actually was responsible for the clinical outcome...

Authorship is only given to people who actively work on the paper-writing portion of the experiment.
Technically, individuals involved with data collection, analysis and those sponsoring the labs aren't entitled to authorship unless they actively work on the paper-writing portion of the process as well.

However, I think it would be stupid not to utilize all resources available (including a PI) when revising a paper for submission to journal. It doesn't really matter how many people are on the article as long as you are first author

 

[caffeinemia]

Feel free to publish in the online journal I just started --- The NoWaygian Medical Journal of Resumebuilding Articles. Cost of submission is $50 per page. Please send check with submission. Lol. This is actually an issue with science and research these days.

 

[ortnakas]

Authorship is only given to people who actively work on the paper-writing portion of the experiment.
Technically, individuals involved with data collection, analysis and those sponsoring the labs aren't entitled to authorship unless they actively work on the paper-writing portion of the process as well.

However, I think it would be stupid not to utilize all resources available (including a PI) when revising a paper for submission to journal. It doesn't really matter how many people are on the article as long as you are first author

Theoretically this is true.
In reality authorship (who gets to be an author, in what order, etc) is a whole lot more political and a whole lot more complicated.

 

[lumpyduster]

Theoretically this is true.
In reality authorship (who gets to be an author, in what order, etc) is a whole lot more political and a whole lot more complicated.

Was actually having a discussion in one of my classes today about this. Have seen on more than one occasion people getting authorships because they had a romantic relationship with a professor. Have also seen people denied authorship in a collaboration because one of the professors didn't like the other professor anymore. I know of someone who got their name on a paper for preparing the bacterial cultures.

The infighting in my department is nuts. Heard of a guy getting an email from one of his committee members threatening to "rape him in his ass" during his qualifying exams (committee member didn't like the candidate's PI). I'm sure every career is full of bull**** in some aspects too, but academia takes the cake IMO.

 

[medic86]

Was actually having a discussion in one of my classes today about this. Have seen on more than one occasion people getting authorships because they had a romantic relationship with a professor. Have also seen people denied authorship in a collaboration because one of the professors didn't like the other professor anymore. I know of someone who got their name on a paper for preparing the bacterial cultures.

The infighting in my department is nuts. Heard of a guy getting an email from one of his committee members threatening to "rape him in his ass" during his qualifying exams (committee member didn't like the candidate's PI). I'm sure every career is full of bull**** in some aspects too, but academia takes the cake IMO.

Lol, definitely.

My PI was telling about his time as a post-doc. Apparently, a fellow post-doc was driven to kill himself by his adviser, and the adviser didn't even give a s***.

 

[Lucca]

Was actually having a discussion in one of my classes today about this. Have seen on more than one occasion people getting authorships because they had a romantic relationship with a professor. Have also seen people denied authorship in a collaboration because one of the professors didn't like the other professor anymore. I know of someone who got their name on a paper for preparing the bacterial cultures.

The infighting in my department is nuts. Heard of a guy getting an email from one of his committee members threatening to "rape him in his ass" during his qualifying exams (committee member didn't like the candidate's PI). I'm sure every career is full of bull**** in some aspects too, but academia takes the cake IMO.

holy **** that's awful. The academic politics I've been exposed to in my lab have been pretty benign.

 

[lumpyduster]

holy **** that's awful. The academic politics I've been exposed to in my lab have been pretty benign.

I definitely think most departments aren't like this. Even though it's an R1 uni, I think there's more gossip than good science going on sometimes XD

 

[Holmwood]

Hmm, this reminds me of the time one of my favorite professors told me of a high school student he was working with that was conducting independent research that was entirely irrelevant to his area of research.

So long as it's peer-reviewed, I don't see why not. It's been done. Albeit, it's not common for a reason. If this is the first time you've ever done independent research, you may not have the necessary experience or knowledge-base to conduct certain kinds of research (or licensure). It'll save you a lot of trouble if you can get a PI to guide you through it and put his/her name in it to propel it to publication. And as previously stated, you should credit someone if they helped you out in any way... it's only ethical.

 

[oopsaloo]

Yes, you can. Try F1000 for instance: http://f1000.com/

I think it's peer reviewed, and I know people who've published here before.

 

[sat0ri]

This part is not verified (but I hear this talked about as if it was fact by the PhD students; and above poster @Holmwood mentions this), but I heard having an influential name is important in getting a paper published. It makes sense: if you're a new scientist, you have yet to demonstrate that your science is scrupulous and so the journal is taking a risk by publishing your work. On the other hand, if you have a big honcho, well established PI who has proven to be influential in your field, it might bump up the impact factor of the type of journal you get in to. This also makes sense, because these established researchers have, by definition, shown that their work gets cited and makes an impact which in many ways is the bottom line for a journal.

So it's actually in your interests to get the PI on board. In fact, they might be hesitant putting their name on it.

 

[lumpyduster]

Lol, definitely.

My PI was telling about his time as a post-doc. Apparently, a fellow post-doc was driven to kill himself by his adviser, and the adviser didn't even give a s***.

The lack of accountability for professors is astounding. Don't have anything against them individually or as a group, but the PI of any group has so much power and almost no accountability- combine that with the lack of HR and the general poor social skills of scientists (the things I have had said and done to me by scientists!! I should just write a Scrubs-like sit com but for academia) and it's a recipe for disaster. And then you look at what they really do at the end of the day... Run a couple gels? Do some NMR? I think someone in the thread mentioned something about the daily stress and lack of results causing petty behavior... I totally agree.

 

[Holmwood]

The lack of accountability for professors is astounding. Don't have anything against them individually or as a group, but the PI of any group has so much power and almost no accountability- combine that with the lack of HR and the general poor social skills of scientists (the things I have had said and done to me by scientists!! I should just write a Scrubs-like sit com but for academia) and it's a recipe for disaster. And then you look at what they really do at the end of the day... Run a couple gels? Do some NMR? I think someone in the thread mentioned something about the daily stress and lack of results causing petty behavior... I totally agree.

Depends on the PI. And honestly, why would you choose to work with a total tool to begin with? I would think in those cases, the students were conned into joining the lab.

Actually, now that I think about it... any PI that's overly enthusiastic about getting you into the lab asap is very suspicious. They'd be more likely to con you into getting excessive free labor out of you. Better try to find a PI who'd be willing to have a good talk and a trial lab session to see if you're a good fit.

 

[mimelim]

Authorship is only given to people who actively work on the paper-writing portion of the experiment.
Technically, individuals involved with data collection, analysis and those sponsoring the labs aren't entitled to authorship unless they actively work on the paper-writing portion of the process as well.

However, I think it would be stupid not to utilize all resources available (including a PI) when revising a paper for submission to journal. It doesn't really matter how many people are on the article as long as you are first author

Based on what exactly do you make a statement like, "Authorship is only given to people who actively work on the paper-writing portion of the experiment." or "aren't entitled to authorship unless they actively work on the paper-writing portion of the process as well"? Are you an editor for a journal?

Every journal that I have sent something to has required something like this:

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conception and design: TP, ED
Analysis and interpretation: TP, JB, ED
Data collection: TP, JB
Writing the article: TP
Critical revision of the article: TP, ED
Final approval of the article: TP, JB, ED
Statistical analysis: JB
Overall responsibility: TP

Where TP/JB/ED are different author initials. I have never heard of a journal having rules, submission guidelines or anything like that who mention anything like "only writers are authors". Hardly the expectation, convention or standard in academic literature.

 

[mmmcdowe]

Authorship is only given to people who actively work on the paper-writing portion of the experiment.
Technically, individuals involved with data collection, analysis and those sponsoring the labs aren't entitled to authorship unless they actively work on the paper-writing portion of the process as well.

However, I think it would be stupid not to utilize all resources available (including a PI) when revising a paper for submission to journal. It doesn't really matter how many people are on the article as long as you are first author

Already been address but yeah authorship is based technically on "intellectual contributions of substantial quantity". Analyzing the data is actually more of a reason to be an author than most things. The PI of a lab is justified in being on every paper from his lab because it is his or her responsiblity as a scientific investigator to ensure the appropriateness of each publication. Letting stuff come out of your lab space that you don't want published is shady. Writing the paper isn't even justification to be first author necessarily (having written many papers that I was second author on), as lead authorship belongs not to the person who did the most work on a paper but whose intellectual contribution is greatest. The person who thought of the project, designed the project, and analyzed the project is much more deserving of first authorship than the person who performed the project and wrote the paper. If the former person chooses to reward the hard work of the latter with first authorship, that is their perogative.

 

[llamasarefuzzy]

Based on what exactly do you make a statement like, "Authorship is only given to people who actively work on the paper-writing portion of the experiment." or "aren't entitled to authorship unless they actively work on the paper-writing portion of the process as well"? Are you an editor for a journal?

Every journal that I have sent something to has required something like this:

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conception and design: TP, ED
Analysis and interpretation: TP, JB, ED
Data collection: TP, JB
Writing the article: TP
Critical revision of the article: TP, ED
Final approval of the article: TP, JB, ED
Statistical analysis: JB
Overall responsibility: TP

Where TP/JB/ED are different author initials. I have never heard of a journal having rules, submission guidelines or anything like that who mention anything like "only writers are authors". Hardly the expectation, convention or standard in academic literature.

*Shrug* Several of the graduate seminars that I have been required to take on academic integrity (with very well established researchers) have said exactly what I said.

 

[mimelim]

*Shrug* Several of the graduate seminars that I have been required to take on academic integrity (with very well established researchers) have said exactly what I said.

Maybe in a particular field this might be true, but certainly in medicine, it is not the standard. If you don't mind sharing for verification/further inquiry, who these "very well established researchers" are, I would be interested.

 

[medic86]

Maybe in a particular field this might be true, but certainly in medicine, it is not the standard. If you don't mind sharing for verification/further inquiry, who these "very well established researchers" are, I would be interested.

Exactly. In the field I'm doing research in, my PI has stated that an individual would get listed as an author just for providing samples - among a litany of other seemingly minute contributions.

 

[llamasarefuzzy]

Maybe in a particular field this might be true, but certainly in medicine, it is not the standard. If you don't mind sharing for verification/further inquiry, who these "very well established researchers" are, I would be interested.

Yes, actually, I do mind. Just know that they have several million in NIH funding, and very respectable H-indices.

Exactly. In the field I'm doing research in, my PI has stated that an individual would get listed as an author just for providing samples - among a litany of other seemingly minute contributions.

It is my understanding that authorship is only to be given for significant intellectual contribution. In my experience, collecting data does not meet the requirement for intellectual contribution.

 

[mimelim]

Yes, actually, I do mind. Just know that they have several million in NIH funding, and very respectable H-indices.

It is my understanding that authorship is only to be given for significant intellectual contribution. In my experience, collecting data does not meet the requirement for intellectual contribution.

*shrug* unverifiable, "graduate seminars" that mention authorship standards vs. everything publicly available as well as common sense. Sorry, hard to take your word for it.


As to the second point, significant intellectual contribution. Absolutely. And I most certainly agree that data collection alone does not qualify. Acknowledgement, absolutely. But, if a middle schooler can do your contribution, you shouldn't expect your name on something.

 

[mcloaf]

*shrug* unverifiable, "graduate seminars" that mention authorship standards vs. everything publicly available as well as common sense. Sorry, hard to take your word for it.


As to the second point, significant intellectual contribution. Absolutely. And I most certainly agree that data collection alone does not qualify. Acknowledgement, absolutely. But, if a middle schooler can do your contribution, you shouldn't expect your name on something.

Related question, what about surgeons who collect/save tissue samples for research during their cases? I know historically they'd be authors on projects stemming from these samples, but I've heard that this practice is discouraged now unless they take a more active role in the research design/manuscript drafting etc. Would be curious what you see happen in practice these days (if you don't mind sharing).

 

[mimelim]

Related question, what about surgeons who collect/save tissue samples for research during their cases? I know historically they'd be authors on projects stemming from these samples, but I've heard that this practice is discouraged now unless they take a more active role in the research design/manuscript drafting etc. Would be curious what you see happen in practice these days (if you don't mind sharing).

If all they are doing is providing the tissue, they are not included as authors. The same goes to surgeons who perform operations that we lump together with the rest of the group and analyze. I always take the abstract/data to every surgeon who's cases I use and ask them if they would like to review things with me and give feedback. If they want to be involved, I include them with the rest of the paper and their name goes on it. Otherwise, acknowledgement.

It happens, as others have noted, research can get political, but for the most part, these things follow a logic. 90% of the time that a pre-med/med student claims that particular authorship was political, it wasn't. They just didn't understand what was actually going on in the project and who was doing what. That other 10% still absolutely exists.

 

[TorpedoVegas38]

Also keep in mind that publications come out of industry as well and it is definitely political who is on the paper and in what order. Also, the level of the journal really affects how political it is; a paper in Science is going to have a lot of time spent on who and in what order people are named, whereas a paper in a more obscure sub field is going to garner little debate about who is on it.

 

[chasm-e-baddoor]

Technically anybody, regardless of degree or lack thereof, can publish anything in the journal. Perform the experiment, write it up + analysis, send it to journals and see if they get published.

The real-world reason that doctors are the ones who mainly publish is because experiments cost money, and youll be hard pressed to get funds if youre not a doctor of something.

If you win the lottery, are a high school graduate, and fund and execute your own significant experiments, you'd probably get published by someone.

 

[Goro]

Untrue. Authorship is generally given for those who make a intellectual contribution to the paper. If one of my colleagues has done nothing but stats work, or is the student who did all the qPCR experiments, those people will be (and have been) co-authors.

Authorship is only given to people who actively work on the paper-writing portion of the experiment.

Most PIs I know will give authorship credit if the person collecting the data understands what they're doing and aren't merely being technicians, following orders. That's the difference between an author and "we are grateful to Ms Jane Doe and Dr Richard Roe for their expert technical assistance."

As to the second point, significant intellectual contribution. Absolutely. And I most certainly agree that data collection alone does not qualify. Acknowledgement, absolutely. But, if a middle schooler can do your contribution, you shouldn't expect your name on something.