Does writing a published review article count as research hours?

[pssowers34]

Hello all,
I just joined a biology research group at my university. We are constructing a new lab with zebrafish, which we will likely be using to perform research regarding the effects of certain neurotoxins, especially dinoflagellates, on cognitive functioning and neuromuscular function.

We are beginning this process by writing a review article on current research surrounding similar topics. We hope to get it published in a toxicology journal. Does writing this article count as “research hours” on a medical school application, or does that title only apply to hands-on work in the lab? If this article is published, does that change the answer?

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LizzyM]

You can list the publication. That shows that you've done that work.

I would not list (tag in in the work/activities section of AMCAS) it as "research" as it is not generating generalizable new knowledge.

 

[candbgirl]

I’m not sure about the research but if you get it published it will be a publication you can include on your application . Are literature reviews considered research?

 

[Mr.Smile12]

This is contentious. Usually research that is hypothesis driven is going to be the most desired, but a good systematic review is valuable and can carry more impact.

I think the work done for the literature review even if you publish it is worth mentioning, but you will have to leave the question of value with committee members.

 

[Lawpy]

You can list the publication. That shows that you've done that work.

I would not list it as "research" as it is not generating generalizable new knowledge.

Wait what

If it’s a review article that’s published in a peer review journal, it is research and should be treated as permanent scientific literature

I think you’re thinking of original research articles?

 

[Lawpy]

This is contentious. Usually research that is hypothesis driven is going to be the most desired, but a good systematic review is valuable and can carry more impact.

I think the work done for the literature review even if you publish it is worth mentioning, but you will have to leave the question of value with committee members.

This puzzles me because on the residency level, any published research is valued, including if they’re review articles. I’m not sure I understand why the thought process behind adcom members wrt to research is any different from residency program directors

 

[Mr.Smile12]

This puzzles me because on the residency level, any published research is valued, including if they’re review articles. I’m not sure I understand why the thought process behind adcom members wrt to research is any different from residency program directors

I can only communicate the thoughts of some faculty. The key is the "scientific thinking" competency where they want to see that someone can appreciate hypothesis-driven research and working in a wet lab. Since many adcoms have a significant presence of research faculty, this is a reflection of the PhD block of voters as opposed to the clinical PD's. This includes the available pool of interviewers too.

 

[LizzyM]

I think that we are mixing two things together here....

the work and activities section of AMCAS has a unique tag for each entry. There can certainly be an entry with the tag Publication for the review article.
I would not make an entry tagged "Research" and include the hours spent doing library research for a review article.
As mentioned above, "research" generally means "wet lab" although computer-based research (e.g. bioinformatics) would count too.

 

[Lawpy]

I can only communicate the thoughts of some faculty. The key is the "scientific thinking" competency where they want to see that someone can appreciate hypothesis-driven research and working in a wet lab. Since many adcoms have a significant presence of research faculty, this is a reflection of the PhD block of voters as opposed to the clinical PD's. This includes the available pool of interviewers too.

I think that we are mixing two things together here....

the work and activities section of AMCAS has a unique tag for each entry. There can certainly be an entry with the tag Publication for the review article.
I would not make an entry tagged "Research" and include the hours spent doing library research for a review article.
As mentioned above, "research" generally means "wet lab" although computer-based research (e.g. bioinformatics) would count too.

Still a little surprising regardless given the tendency to churn out systematic reviews and case reports on clinical conditions that are considered by clinical faculty as research… even though it’s just a few hours work of library search and writing up the report.

While basic science faculty members are part of adcoms, it’s still ultimately applying to med school not grad school. But I suppose that difference does matter.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Still a little surprising regardless given the tendency to churn out systematic reviews and case reports on clinical conditions that are considered by clinical faculty as research… even though it’s just a few hours work of library search and writing up the report.

While basic science faculty members are part of adcoms, it’s still ultimately applying to med school not grad school. But I suppose that difference does matter.

I think there's a slight distinction here between a publication and research.

Absolutely, any and all publications should be listed on your application, and as you said they are valuable. But I probably would not list the time spent to write a review as "research hours" because, as noted above, it isn't generating new knowledge. Case report/series may or may not be "research" depending on whether you do any correlative studies vs. just give a clinical presentation. There are some case reports that generate new knowledge, while others are strictly clinical, and it just depends on the specific content.

At the end of the day, this discussion is pretty irrelevant because I think that research hours are fairly meaningless, and once you hit a certain number of hours people start looking more at specific deliverables that you generated such as publications and presentations.

 

[Hzreio]

Tbh I completely disagree with review articles not being considered research. Review articles can be some of the highest cited papers in the scientific community.

Let’s say 10 years of progress have passed on a topic, researchers now want to find more unknowns on the topic? How does one figure out what is unknown? Start by reviewing what is known. It’s an important contribution to the scientific community.

I’d say count it as research and congrats on the pub.

 

[Lawpy]

I think there's a slight distinction here between a publication and research.

Absolutely, any and all publications should be listed on your application, and as you said they are valuable. But I probably would not list the time spent to write a review as "research hours" because, as noted above, it isn't generating new knowledge. Case report/series may or may not be "research" depending on whether you do any correlative studies vs. just give a clinical presentation. There are some case reports that generate new knowledge, while others are strictly clinical, and it just depends on the specific content.

At the end of the day, this discussion is pretty irrelevant because I think that research hours are fairly meaningless, and once you hit a certain number of hours people start looking more at specific deliverables that you generated such as publications and presentations.

Review articles summarize recent advances made in the field and give important insights for new directions that by extension lead to major grants and original research articles that actively cite the said review articles. I very strongly believe review articles are and should be treated as research and not be dismissed as simply library research (especially seeing that the best review articles are often written by medical and scientific leaders in leading journals). Case reports and chart reviews may add some value but comparatively they’re so trivial and largely forgotten.

Oh i wasn’t looking into research hours. I was focusing on listing and presenting it as a research description to be talked about and defended

 

[GoSpursGo]

Review articles summarize recent advances made in the field and give important insights for new directions that by extension lead to major grants and original research articles that actively cite the said review articles. I very strongly believe review articles are and should be treated as research and not be dismissed as simply library research (especially seeing that the best review articles are often written by medical and scientific leaders in leading journals). Case reports and chart reviews may add some value but compartively it’s so trivial and largely forgotten.

Again, I agree that reviews are important. Getting a review published is definitely a major achievement. They generally are not "research" though, which is why there are separate sections on professional CVs for "original research" vs. "reviews."

The bottom line I'm trying to get across is that the entire question is kind of irrelevant--regardless of whether or not the OP counts the time spent writing a review article as "research hours," getting an article published would clearly be a meaningful achievement and they should go for it. My one caveat is that they need to make sure they're working closely with a faculty member who knows what they are doing and that they are actually conducting their review in a manner that will be publishable.

 

[Lawpy]

Again, I agree that reviews are important. Getting a review published is definitely a major achievement. They generally are not "research" though, which is why there are separate sections on professional CVs for "original research" vs. "reviews."

The bottom line I'm trying to get across is that the entire question is kind of irrelevant--regardless of whether or not the OP counts the time spent writing a review article as "research hours," getting an article published would clearly be a meaningful achievement and they should go for it. My one caveat is that they need to make sure they're working closely with a faculty member who knows what they are doing and that they are actually conducting their review in a manner that will be publishable.

Original research is the key point and i addressed this in my first post. I agree reviews are not original research but i don’t know nor think admissions is necessarily looking for original research which itself is very difficult to get if we’re talking basic science research. Most basic science research listed in med school apps are not really meaningful because of exaggerated experience descriptions and because most of the work is done by grad students and postdocs who are far more adept in basic science research than undergrads/gap year applicants (unless in rare circumstances, these applicants are talented, are PhDs themselves and find the right PI)

But with just the general description of research, i think reviews should be listed as part of research. They’re not original research but they are still research nonetheless

I agree with the rest of your post

 

[GoSpursGo]

Original research is the key point and i addressed this in my first post. I agree reviews are not original research but i don’t know nor think admissions is necessarily looking for original research which itself is very difficult to get if we’re talking basic science research. Most basic science research listed in med school apps are not really meaningful because of exaggerated experience descriptions and because most of the work is done by grad students and postdocs who are far more adept in basic science research than undergrads/gap year applicants (unless in rare circumstances, these applicants are talented, are PhDs themselves and find the right PI)

But with just the general description of research, i think reviews should be listed as part of research. They’re not original research but they are still research nonetheless

Sure. I'm not sure I would list "x hours" as being devoted to writing a review, which is what the original question was. But absolutely belongs under the description. For the reasons I have given, I am also dubious that the number of research hours listed on an application really means anything anyways.

 

[Lawpy]

Does writing this article count as “research hours” on a medical school application

Sure. I'm not sure I would list "x hours" as being devoted to writing a review, which is what the original question was. But absolutely belongs under the description. For the reasons I have given, I am also dubious that the number of research hours listed on an application really means anything anyways.

Oh. Ok i admit i missed the research hours description in the OP. I agree with your and LizzyM’s earlier points now.

 

[pssowers34]

Thank you all so much! This is all incredibly helpful. It seems wise to include the publication, but without including "x number of hours" spent on the library research involved.

Thank you all again!

 

[Goro]

You can list the publication. That shows that you've done that work.

I would not list (tag in in the work/activities section of AMCAS) it as "research" as it is not generating generalizable new knowledge.

Ditto. You're not testing a hypothesis.

 

[aldol16]

It depends on how many research hours you have already. I suspect that it's not many, otherwise you wouldn't be wanting to count these hours in the first place. If you're needing research hours, then you could count it but it's going to be very obvious what you're doing since you're not spending the time doing lab work or analyzing data. Scientists do write review articles but it's slightly different from the scientific method (unless you spruce it up as a systematic review or meta-analysis).

 

[PhD_to_DO]

Hello all,
I just joined a biology research group at my university. We are constructing a new lab with zebrafish, which we will likely be using to perform research regarding the effects of certain neurotoxins, especially dinoflagellates, on cognitive functioning and neuromuscular function.

We are beginning this process by writing a review article on current research surrounding similar topics. We hope to get it published in a toxicology journal. Does writing this article count as “research hours” on a medical school application, or does that title only apply to hands-on work in the lab? If this article is published, does that change the answer?

Thanks!

Depends on the type of review. If you are writing a systematic review/meta analysis, you can call that research and count the number of hours you put into the project. It does take training to write reviews of this type and conduct the data analysis however. If, however, you are writing a scoping or a narrative review, you would just call that a publication but its not research. Based on what you have described, I’m guessing that you all are writing a scoping or a narrative review.

 

[pssowers34]

Hello everyone,
I have recently joined my college's undergraduate biology research program. I live quite far from my college, and I am working as a medical assistant at home this summer. However, I am still working on our research by writing protocols and applying for grants.

Does writing research protocols and applying for grants count as research hours even though they're not wet lab experience? Eventually, these protocols will be used in our wet lab research, but I'm just writing these protocols on my computer at home. Is there a consensus on this?

Thanks in advance for any help!

 

[chilly_md]

Hello everyone,
I have recently joined my college's undergraduate biology research program. I live quite far from my college, and I am working as a medical assistant at home this summer. However, I am still working on our research by writing protocols and applying for grants.

Does writing research protocols and applying for grants count as research hours even though they're not wet lab experience? Eventually, these protocols will be used in our wet lab research, but I'm just writing these protocols on my computer at home. Is there a consensus on this?

Thanks in advance for any help!

I have merged your post with the original discussion. As mentioned before, you are not generating any new knowledge or testing a hypothesis, so this does not count as research hours.

 

[pssowers34]

Thank you so much! I just wanted to clarify. I appreciate your help!

 

[Hzreio]

Thank you so much! I just wanted to clarify. I appreciate your help!

I still disagree that grant writing and narrative reviews are not considered research hours. They are an essential part of academia

 

[GoSpursGo]

Hello everyone,
I have recently joined my college's undergraduate biology research program. I live quite far from my college, and I am working as a medical assistant at home this summer. However, I am still working on our research by writing protocols and applying for grants.

Does writing research protocols and applying for grants count as research hours even though they're not wet lab experience? Eventually, these protocols will be used in our wet lab research, but I'm just writing these protocols on my computer at home. Is there a consensus on this?

Thanks in advance for any help!

This is a little different from your original question, where you were asking about writing a review. I do think that writing protocols can count as research hours, as "planning" to test the hypothesis is certainly important to make sure that you're conducting the experiment in a valid manner.

I am not sure how you could credibly be applying for grants without wet lab experience, but I would also probably count that as research as again you're planning your proposed experiments.

I still would not count writing a review as research hours, but if you get it published obviously that's a nice achievement.