confused about research...

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

abcxyz0123

Full Member
Lifetime Donor
20+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
575
Reaction score
37
I was just wondering how many of you actually have published research? And what are the chances that a person who does research their sophomore and junior years gets to have a publication with their name on it? Does it only happen rarely and by chance? Or does it happen frequently, the more involved you are in it? And how do they decide if you get your name published in the research? Do you actually have to find something on your own, like something the professor directing the research would have never thought of or found, or can you just be a person that helped out? I don't know if these are stupid questions, but i really want to know more about how this stuff works...

thanks
 
If you are applying to a straight MD program, research is a good way to productively use your summer, and a good way to get to know a professor well for a later recommendation. From what I've been told, MD adcoms don't expect papers from applicants. For MD/PhD programs, that's where you need heavy duty research and authorship on papers.
 
Reimat said:
If you are applying to a straight MD program, research is a good way to productively use your summer, and a good way to get to know a professor well for a later recommendation. From what I've been told, MD adcoms don't expect papers from applicants. For MD/PhD programs, that's where you need heavy duty research and authorship on papers.

Wow, that's probably the best answer I've heard regarding the research question.

I second this. :hardy:
 
fotolilith said:
Wow, that's probably the best answer I've heard regarding the research question.

I second this. :hardy:


As do I. The majority of applicants simply aren't going to be published. A huge percentage will have done some research, but as for being published that's a different story. MD/PhD applicants on the other hand are a completely different scenario. They are expected to have done much more serious research. So don't worry if you haven't gotten published yet. It's entirely possible to get into med school without having done any research at all, provided you've dedicated your time seriously to something else.
 
Ive published some papers and its highly dependent on the person that you work for, how scientifically productive that person's lab is and their standing in getting manuscripts pass the editorial boards of good journals (junk journals dont count), and how much you contribute in generating data. Most of these factors are out of the hands of most undergrads but its doable if youre in the right situation and have enough luck to have experiments work that yield usable data.
 
First question, are you asking because:

a) You are interested in research, and would like to see what amount of work you have to put into research to get a publication?

b) You want to do this just to improve your application and you don't have much interest in research.

If you chose (b), then you might want to reconsider. You do things that YOU like not because you think it will help you get into med school or not. For the purposes of this post, research and even having publications are a dime a dozen when looking at the total number of applicants, so you want to have something that sets yourself apart from the next applicant. However, now if a publication in something that sets yourself apart from everyone else who has done research and/or have publications, then that might be something interesting. But yea, don't do something because you think everyone else is doing it. (Unless you like research....then go for it, more power to you) 🙂

To answer your question, at this moment, I am starting my 2nd year of post-bacc. I have a total of 20 publications, and will be submitting my 21st by the end of the year. I started doing research as a junior at UC Davis, and by the end of the year, due to my hardwork, I was rewarded with being the author of 2 book chapters (appendices) in a medical text.

By the time I graduated (3 additional years), I had 10 publications, 2 were the book chapters, 5 were journal articles, and 3 were abstracts. The other 10 publications were during my post-bacc. They were of better quality, since they were for my actual personal research, and were also sent to peer-reviewed journals.

So all in all, i've been able to garner about 20 publications in 4 years. Some were abstracts, most were journal articles, and a 2 were book chapters. For the most part, I was able to maintain myself as first or second author...and this is pretty important since it shows who contributed to the paper the most.

Now for your question about if it is easy to get a publication? For me, I AM VERY LUCKY. I think I thank whatever higher being on a weekly basis that I was lucky enough to find this lab 4+ years ago. It IS definately how much work you put into the lab, and its also depends on the lab. If it is a lab which publishes a lot, then you might be able to find your way into getting publications. If its not then you might be doing labwork with little possibility of a publication. Its HARD work. Very HARD work. My first publication required uncountable rewrites. I still to this day have to work for weeks or months to get things right.

With regards to finding a publication. As the saying goes, good things never come looking for you, you gotta go out and find it. Now back to the whole thing about getting your name on paper. As i said, first author is pretty much the person who wrote the paper, did most of the research (data collecting, reference collecting, etc). The second author is probably almost at the same level as the first author but they did a tad less. The third and fourth authors are pretty much contributors, but did enough to be a co-author. Otherwise you would end up in acknowledgements.

All authorships are possible, even for an undergrad. Out of my 9 journal publications (total pubs was 20), 4 were as first author, and 2 were second author. Although I wrote the whole paper, and conducted the research that went with these papers, my PI put his name first because he is the PI. I personally have nothing against that since the paper would probably get shut out during the peer-reviewed process otherwise. Thats why i said that the 1st and 2nd authorships might be overlapping.

Now, I don't know about your school, but here at UC Davis, they have their own undergraduate science journal, and undergraduate research conferences. YOu can get publications that way too and avoid all the junk from the big journals. In the end, ya know my 20 publications may or may not help me get into med school. I know that, but I enjoy this job, plus it keeps me funded for school.

Hope this lenghty explanation helps. 🙂
 
If nothing else, try it because you might actually find it enjoyable or intellectually stimulating.

You could end up completely hating it, but then again, I think that there is definately something positive to be gleaned from the experience.
 
I concur with the advice here.

I, personally, didn't have a drop of research applying to medical school. I found bench work to be tedious and horrendous (still do). It didn't seem to hurt my application at all.

Now, I actually really enjoy research (clinical) so it doesn't hurt to give it a try. YOu might like it.
 
Reimat said:
For MD/PhD programs, that's where you need heavy duty research and authorship on papers.

although it would help, i just want to stress that MSTP programs (even the top programs in the country) doesn't necessarily require a student to have published a paper. the only things they are looking for in an applicant is

1. whether or not they are committed to research
2. are able to work independently and think critically
3. are able to make sound judgments and know the dedication involved into pursuing the career.

many applicants in past years along with dozens of SDN members have gone to top schools without having even submitted an abstract.
 
The impression I get is that whether or not you publish is very much a function of the PI you work for. I know people who've busted their butts for years and not gotten a chance to publish, whereas other people publish after just a summer. What annoys me is that some of the people in the latter category are just lucky enough to have connections - like their dad is a colleague of the PI and it's basically a "favor". I think it's pretty unfair, actually, but there are so many unfairnesses in this process that it's stopped bothering me.
 
I love my lab, but it's run by a Nobel Prize winner who refuses to have anything published in a journal besides Science or Nature. That said, after 2 years of 20+ hours a week, I have tons of data, but we're jsut sending out a few papers now. But you know what? I wouldn't have switched to a different lab even if it meant 10 first authorships in the same amount of time. My advice is to do what you enjoy and make sure you're surrounded by cool people who enjoy it jsut as much.
 
I agree with the idea that its more important for MD/PhD programs.

I do think that if you apply to a medical school that focuses on research too (like Einstein I know does), then exposure to research helps. After spending a summer at a medical school doing research.... directors give you incite. Research conducted at a small liberal arts college is not considered that important....

They outright said, they have no measure of how much you did or what your project was because the findings that come out of small liberal arts colleges are normally not substantial and thus, aren't as critical....

So if you are going to do research, I think its best to do it at a medical school or a school with graduate programs with research.... ideas like that.

Im not putting down those who do research at small liberal arts colleges, just lettingyou know what I found out....
 
Top