Efficient way to get Publications

[libertyyne]

What is the best way to get >5 publications in medical school short of doing a research year.

Should I be looking for PI's that are prolific prior to doing research?
Yes, and make your intentions clear to the PI. Pubmed searches would be the way to go.

Any tips for finding the labs/PI that will help me accomplish this?
See above, also contact residents.

How many hours per week should I set aside in the first two years?
Varies greatly

Is getting a mentor and submitting IRB approvals for retrospective chart reviews the way to go ?

Is quality of study / journal better than quantity?
Yes, however there is a risk of not publishing in quality so quantity is a safety measure.

Any guidance from people who have been successful in this regard is appreciated.


Edited to include answers from the thread.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[gcuddles]

I don't have answers to a lot of your questions (I'm not sure anyone definitively does), but here are some things I've learned over the past year:

If you're going with basic science, make sure you're VERY clear with your PI what you want out of a research position. With clinical research, usually done with residents under an attending's "supervision", it's usually understood, since residents know what med students are looking for. Idk if this info is available to you (maybe on lab websites), but if you can join a lab with a PhD student finishing up their thesis (look for 3rd/4th year MD/PhD students, 6th year PhD), try to jump on that. I got 2 publications from helping a student tie up some loose ends experiment-wise (albeit not while in med school) with their thesis.

As for hours per week, that will depend on you and the research that you're doing. I highly recommend letting yourself settle in to school for a month or so (at least) to see how you adjust to medical school, and to see what other extra-curriculars you want to do and how much time those will take. It's also hard to say how many hours per week, especially in the beginning, since you'll need to get all your training done. Once your training is done, you'll be able to work when you can, and you'll set a pace of productivity that's sustainable. Basic science research is often a lot of hurry up and wait, so while you may be spending 10 hours physically in lab a week, it's only more like 4/5 hours of doing actual work. If your school has recorded lectures, this is absolutely the best way to use your time.

As for quality vs. quantity...it really depends on the quality and quantity. Does 1 first-author publication in Nature look better than 4 third-author pubs in a low-impact journal? Probably. But 1 in Nature vs. 3/4 as third author in something like JNeuro (idk if neuro is your thing) is hard to say. Also, compare apples to apples. Someone doing clinical research will absolutely get more pubs than someone doing basic science, so maybe try to get a little of both. Pub for pub though, basic science hits harder.

 

[DNC127]

Work smart + hard. I am a first year with 5 in review at the moment at some pretty high powered journals. You need to find the right PI that has a track record for fast pubs, and then you need to get innovative and maximize your time. I put in at least 2 hours a day most days. PM me if you want.

 

[bannie22]

luck

 

[HybridEarth]

What is the best way to get >5 publications in medical school short of doing a research year.
Should I be looking for PI's that are prolific prior to doing research?
Any tips for finding the labs/PI that will help me accomplish this?
How many hours per week should I set aside in the first two years?
Is getting a mentor and submitting IRB approvals for retrospective chart reviews the way to go ?
Is quality of study / journal better than quantity?
Any guidance from people who have been successful in this regard is appreciated.

In order of your questions...
1 - not a bad idea, just make sure you won't hate yourself studying something you're not at all interested in
2 - not sure, the way I did it was looking up random docs in departments i was interested in and seeing how active they were on pubmed, as well as the kinds of studies they were doing
3 - really depends... I have a couple of friends who are putting in some serious hours in lab research in M2. Not sure why but whatever. Me on the other hand, I dedicate maybe several hours a week, if that. Note that I'm focusing on clinical research just because it's more practical for me to do during the school year.
4 - chart reviews are really easy to do. i wouldn't waste your time with single case reports personally, unless someone is begging you to help with it and it's a free pub. it's really not "research" in my opinion. i'd look for opportunities comparing one group of patients to another in regards to X treatments and Y outcomes
5 - quality is definitely an eye opener, but don't let that get to your head. quantity can easily stratify too. what I mean is, getting a pub in a peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor > 3.0 is usually considered "good". Note that some specialties, for example neurosurgery, have limited viewership/applicability in general medicine and so even their very best journals have "lower" impact factors. So that has to be taken into account as well. this is what I mean by not letting impact factor get in the way of things, it is important yet it's not. many groundbreaking studies were published in journals with lower impact factors. Another example is with ortho journals - many of the best are within the 3's range. While publishing in a journal like Molecular Cell would be amazing, don't bank on it happening. Long story short, get pubs from decent journals people have probably heard of. Lastly, stay away from journals with odd or unrecognizable names.

Side note: I've noticed at my own school that many people don't take advantage of making contacts with residents. I would reach out to a department you're interested in and make friends with a resident who needs research help. I've co-authored several decent studies in M1 just by asking people if they needed help. There's this misconception that publishing is a huge pain. Not true at all. Just take the initiative to find the right people. PM me if you have any other questions

 

[Syndicate]

What exactly does a journal with an unrecognizable name mean? I have several pubs in an IF>3 journal that you've described but I'm pretty sure 99% of clinical attendings would never have heard of the journal. Would it hurt me just because my interviewer has never heard of the journal name?


Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile

 

[HybridEarth]

What exactly does a journal with an unrecognizable name mean? I have several pubs in an IF>3 journal that you've described but I'm pretty sure 99% of clinical attendings would never have heard of the journal. Would it hurt me just because my interviewer has never heard of the journal name?


Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile

For example, a journal named after some unknown city or a random hospital. Or Nebraska Nurse. Things like that.

Oops and to answer your main question: i don't think it would hurt you. but realize the people reading apps are human too, so if they see a journal name they don't readily recognize or if it sounds very obscure, it's human nature to kind of scratch your head at it. pubs are pubs at the end of the day, don't sweat it

 

[Astra]

@HybridEarth

What are your tips if I might attend a school without much research or an affiliated teaching hospital?

 

[HybridEarth]

@HybridEarth

What are your tips if I might attend a school without much research or an affiliated teaching hospital?

No affiliated teaching hospital? Where do you do your clinical rotations?!

I have a friend who was in a slightly similar boat. He attends a school that is not research oriented by ANY means, but he is looking to get into one of the more research-focused specialties. Because his school wasn't helpful at all, he e-mailed some department chairs at nearby hospitals, stating he was a med student looking to get some clinical projects done. That did the trick. Not sure how typical that is, if at all.

 

[Astra]

No affiliated teaching hospital? Where do you do your clinical rotations?!

I have a friend who was in a slightly similar boat. He attends a school that is not research oriented by ANY means, but he is looking to get into one of the more research-focused specialties. Because his school wasn't helpful at all, he e-mailed some department chairs at nearby hospitals, stating he was a med student looking to get some clinical projects done. That did the trick. Not sure how typical that is, if at all.

The 3rd and 4th years are done at rotation sites around the state. Each person gets assigned to a site for 2 years and learns at the community hospital. Its a preceptor based model and this is a primary care focused school.

I have a friend who was in a slightly similar boat. He attends a school that is not research oriented by ANY means, but he is looking to get into one of the more research-focused specialties. Because his school wasn't helpful at all, he e-mailed some department chairs at nearby hospitals, stating he was a med student looking to get some clinical projects done. That did the trick. Not sure how typical that is, if at all.

Lol that moment when there is only one hospital in that town and its not research oriented.

Idk how but they have had a decent number of people matching ortho,ent, derm

 

[IslandStyle808]

Damn son 5 pubs, I'd be lucky if I got one.

 

[HybridEarth]

The 3rd and 4th years are done at rotation sites around the state. Each person gets assigned to a site for 2 years and learns at the community hospital. Its a preceptor based model and this is a primary care focused school.



Lol that moment when there is only one hospital in that town and its not research oriented.

Idk how but they have had a decent number of people matching ortho,ent, derm

Well research is definitely not the most important thing, right? Play to your other strengths then... i.e. get the highest step 1 you can, best clinical grades, and best letters possible. research is really just the cherry on top if you have the others. example, 3 people at my school matched into (according to doximity) top tier programs, in competitive specialties, with 0 or 1 publication.

 

[gcuddles]

@HybridEarth

What are your tips if I might attend a school without much research or an affiliated teaching hospital?

Try to find a summer program (they're usually 10 weeks minimum) for between M1 and M2 that will get you a lot of clinical exposure. Try to keep on top of those contacts so you can keep working on the projects during M2. Bit of a pickle you've got there though...

 

[Goro]

Find people who have interesting cases that will make case reports.

Do metadata analysis.

Be a data miner for people who have reams of clinical data, but just haven't found the time to go through it all.

Crap journals are crap journals and we can sport them a mile away. Quality >>quantity in my book.

What is the best way to get >5 publications in medical school short of doing a research year.
Should I be looking for PI's that are prolific prior to doing research?
Any tips for finding the labs/PI that will help me accomplish this?
How many hours per week should I set aside in the first two years?
Is getting a mentor and submitting IRB approvals for retrospective chart reviews the way to go ?
Is quality of study / journal better than quantity?
Any guidance from people who have been successful in this regard is appreciated.

 

[Syndicate]

Find people who have interesting cases that will make case reports.

Do metadata analysis.

Be a data miner for people who have reams of clinical data, but just haven't found the time to go through it all.

Crap journals are crap journals and we can sport them a mile away. Quality >>quantity in my book.

What impact factor would you say is a "crap journal"?


Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile

 

[bachprotege]

I don't have answers to a lot of your questions (I'm not sure anyone definitively does), but here are some things I've learned over the past year:

If you're going with basic science, make sure you're VERY clear with your PI what you want out of a research position. With clinical research, usually done with residents under an attending's "supervision", it's usually understood, since residents know what med students are looking for. Idk if this info is available to you (maybe on lab websites), but if you can join a lab with a PhD student finishing up their thesis (look for 3rd/4th year MD/PhD students, 6th year PhD), try to jump on that. I got 2 publications from helping a student tie up some loose ends experiment-wise (albeit not while in med school) with their thesis.

As for hours per week, that will depend on you and the research that you're doing. I highly recommend letting yourself settle in to school for a month or so (at least) to see how you adjust to medical school, and to see what other extra-curriculars you want to do and how much time those will take. It's also hard to say how many hours per week, especially in the beginning, since you'll need to get all your training done. Once your training is done, you'll be able to work when you can, and you'll set a pace of productivity that's sustainable. Basic science research is often a lot of hurry up and wait, so while you may be spending 10 hours physically in lab a week, it's only more like 4/5 hours of doing actual work. If your school has recorded lectures, this is absolutely the best way to use your time.

As for quality vs. quantity...it really depends on the quality and quantity. Does 1 first-author publication in Nature look better than 4 third-author pubs in a low-impact journal? Probably. But 1 in Nature vs. 3/4 as third author in something like JNeuro (idk if neuro is your thing) is hard to say. Also, compare apples to apples. Someone doing clinical research will absolutely get more pubs than someone doing basic science, so maybe try to get a little of both. Pub for pub though, basic science hits harder.

1st author in Nature during med school as one's only publication is an extremely impressive feat in itself, imo. It is much more significant than even 5-6 low authorships in lower tier journals. I am an advocate of quality over quantity.

 

[libertyyne]

1st author in Nature during med school as one's only publication is an extremely impressive feat in itself, imo. It is much more significant than even 5-6 low authorships in lower tier journals. I am an advocate of quality over quantity.

I would assume there is a lot of luck associated with bring involved in research that is worthy of publication in Nature, let alone being first author. At least the multiple low impact publications display effort and hopefully research design chops.

 

[Goro]

And the production of crap science too.

I would assume there is a lot of luck associated with bring involved in research that is worthy of publication in Nature, let alone being first author. At least the multiple low impact publications display effort and hopefully research design chops.

 

[HybridEarth]

And the production of crap science too.

If you're talking about journals that are < 1.5 in IF, then I agree wholeheartedly. I understand you're in basic science research so maybe that number is different for your field(s), but clinical journals can be extremely variable in IF and still have quality work

 

[mw18]

Build a database (chart review) in the summer between M1 and M2.

 

[MaxPlancker]

1st author in Nature during med school as one's only publication is an extremely impressive feat in itself, imo. It is much more significant than even 5-6 low authorships in lower tier journals. I am an advocate of quality over quantity.

I would assume there is a lot of luck associated with bring involved in research that is worthy of publication in Nature, let alone being first author. At least the multiple low impact publications display effort and hopefully research design chops.

A first author paper in a decent journal is far better than even 5 mid author papers. A first author does everything from conception to dissemination; a mid-author only does a part of the project and does not grasp the full intricacies of research. If you talk about 1 Nature first author, that is better than 20 mid-authorships in low-mid journals. Even a first author in a medium journal beats out 5 mid authorships.

Also, what does mid-author mean? It is impossible to give middle authorships too much thought since you could have worked a year or run a couple of experiments for that.

 

[Goro]

< 2

What impact factor would you say is a "crap journal"?


Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile

 

[libertyyne]

And the production of crap science too.

I might be wrong, but it seems like in all things in life getting a paper in Nature as first author requires some luck as well has hard work.

 

[Goro]

Luck has nothing to do with it. It's ALL hard work and being both daring and observant. This from a Nature class journal co-author.

I might be wrong, but it seems like in all things in life getting a paper in Nature as first author requires some luck as well has hard work.

 

[libertyyne]

Luck has nothing to do with it. It's ALL hard work and being both daring and observant. This from a Nature class journal co-author.

I guess I will take your word for it, i thought positive experiment results just dont show up regardless of how hard you try.

 

[gcuddles]

As is the case of everything in life, nothing is all hard work and nothing is all luck. Even those extremely talented in a field must practice, just as those who have no natural talent can practice for a lifetime and still not measure up. It's tough ****, but that's life.

Yes, publications in Nature and Cell and Science take a lot of luck. Does your PI have the prestige to publish there and the funding to do experiments worthy of the journal? Does that lab happen to have a spot open when you want to join? Is their research something you're interested in and can successfully apply to residency applications later? But first authorship is a ****-ton of work. There's a reason people do research as their full-time jobs. Maybe you get lucky and find a PI or postdoc willing to let you get the credit for what should really be their first-author paper (unlikely for postdocs who feel the pressure to publish more than we do), but if you don't put in the hours, you've let an amazing opportunity go to waste. Conversely, working your *ss off for years in a lab that publishes slowly or that has strange regulations regarding authorship doesn't get you anywhere either.

That's why I bothered to give my 2 cents on this in the first place: I appreciate that the OP was trying to find a way to strategically maximize their chances while getting an idea of how much work/effort they'll need to make what they want happen.

Another idea: don't do basic science research on things like neurodegenerative disease or psychiatric illness. The projects themselves take a LONG time.

 

[MSTP18]

Luck has nothing to do with it. It's ALL hard work and being both daring and observant. This from a Nature class journal co-author.

Sorry Goro, I respect your med school advice a lot but career research scientists know that luck and cronyism (cronyism in this case meaning that if you are super well known and get groundbreaking findings you are more likely to be considered correct than if you aren't well known) are part of the puzzle for getting accepted at these journals.

 

[ChrisMack390]

Goro you are the first scientist I've ever heard deny the idea that luck plays a major role in research.

 

[Bumblenest]

Ask almost any scientist and they will tell you they would rather be lucky than smart...

 

[Goro]

I think that luck may help with the initial; discovery or whatever attracts one's interest, but that's where it ends. I've seen too many scientists pass up gold because they either already had too much on their plate, discounted what they found, or didn't see connections to other things.

Cronyism does play a role in publications, I'll grant that, but we weren't discussing that. Having a name also plays a role. It greases the wheels.

Goro you are the first scientist I've ever heard deny the idea that luck plays a major role in research.

 

[Goro]

"I'd rather be lucky than good" NY Yankees pitcher lefty Gomez.

Ask almost any scientist and they will tell you they would rather be lucky than smart...

 

[aalamruad]

Luck has nothing to do with it. It's ALL hard work and being both daring and observant. This from a Nature class journal co-author.

How can it be both daring and unrelated to luck? Isn't daringness, by definition, related to riskiness and thus related to luck?

 

[sammiesings]

Ok but getting back to the original question: if you don't know what specialty you're committed to, isn't diving deep and committing to research with a PI of a specific specialty short sighted? Not sure what OP's life is, but in general shouldn't you wait until you have a solid commitment to/ feel of your specialty of choice? I know it's not entirely about your research matching your specialty, but it does matter enough to have publications in that specialty come residency time, doesn't it?

 

[aalamruad]

Ok but getting back to the original question: if you don't know what specialty you're committed to, isn't diving deep and committing to research with a PI of a specific specialty short sighted? Not sure what OP's life is, but in general shouldn't you wait until you have a solid commitment to/ feel of your specialty of choice? I know it's not entirely about your research matching your specialty, but it does matter enough to have publications in that specialty come residency time, doesn't it?

That's a good point. I think the general consensus is that you should shadow ASAP to try to narrow down your specialty interests and thus narrow down your research focus, and if all else fails then just do research in the most competitive specialty of the ones you're interested in to play it safe. I'm planning on doing a bunch of shadowing in 5-6 specialties I'm interested in over the next few months before med school starts in order to hit the ground running with research in the field I'm most interested in as an MS1, I'm hoping that's a good idea

 

[sammiesings]

That's a good point. I think the general consensus is that you should shadow ASAP to try to narrow down your specialty interests and thus narrow down your research focus, and if all else fails then just do research in the most competitive specialty of the ones you're interested in to play it safe. I'm planning on doing a bunch of shadowing in 5-6 specialties I'm interested in over the next few months before med school starts in order to hit the ground running with research in the field I'm most interested in as an MS1, I'm hoping that's a good idea

Sounds like a workable solution. Thanks for sharing!

 

[libertyyne]

Ok but getting back to the original question: if you don't know what specialty you're committed to, isn't diving deep and committing to research with a PI of a specific specialty short sighted? Not sure what OP's life is, but in general shouldn't you wait until you have a solid commitment to/ feel of your specialty of choice? I know it's not entirely about your research matching your specialty, but it does matter enough to have publications in that specialty come residency time, doesn't it?

My understanding is that you never really know what your step score is. So you should do basic research or in the specialty you have in mind as step scores a usually released after 2nd or 3rd year. Otherwise you will end up scrambling to get research and letters and building contacts.

Plus you have more time during m1,and m2. Why overburden yourself during m3.

 

[tymont12]

Ok but getting back to the original question: if you don't know what specialty you're committed to, isn't diving deep and committing to research with a PI of a specific specialty short sighted? Not sure what OP's life is, but in general shouldn't you wait until you have a solid commitment to/ feel of your specialty of choice? I know it's not entirely about your research matching your specialty, but it does matter enough to have publications in that specialty come residency time, doesn't it?

To echo what Libertyyne said, don't wait until M2/3 when you may know what specific specialty you want. Most students will do something their M1-2 years and then maybe do more specialty-specific stuff in M3/4 (case reports, chart reviews, etc.). The general advice is to aim for the more difficult specialty that you think you're interested in, but any research is better than none.

 

[HybridEarth]

That's a good point. I think the general consensus is that you should shadow ASAP to try to narrow down your specialty interests and thus narrow down your research focus, and if all else fails then just do research in the most competitive specialty of the ones you're interested in to play it safe. I'm planning on doing a bunch of shadowing in 5-6 specialties I'm interested in over the next few months before med school starts in order to hit the ground running with research in the field I'm most interested in as an MS1, I'm hoping that's a good idea

I'll add to this and say that any studies related to cancer or radiology/imaging are widely applicable, so you can cover the most "ground" that way if you're unsure of a specialty (which is completely normal in pre-clinical years, don't sweat it)

 

[MSTP18]

I think that luck may help with the initial; discovery or whatever attracts one's interest, but that's where it ends. I've seen too many scientists pass up gold because they either already had too much on their plate, discounted what they found, or didn't see connections to other things.

Cronyism does play a role in publications, I'll grant that, but we weren't discussing that. Having a name also plays a role. It greases the wheels.

Yes we were discussing that because you said it is "ALL hard work" and my point contributes to the discussion of whether or not it is ALL hard work. A student doing phenomenal work with a lesser known PI might not get published in Nature because the reviewers are biased to think it must be wrong while the inferior work of a student with a more famous PI might get accepted because the reviewers are biased to think it must be right. Similarly high quality groundbreaking work on a less sexy topic might get passed over for mundane work on a sexy topic.

I literally watched this happen in my department. A student in a big name PI's lab published the most simplest, mundane, obvious results in a sexy topic in a top tier journal while a student in a small lab with a less famous PI who completely altered the dogma of a less sexy pathway (although in a disease state that affects literally thousands more people than the sexy topic) struggles to get accepted into mid tier journals. Literally everyone in the department knows the latter student is the far superior scientist.

 

[aalamruad]

Yes we were discussing that because you said it is "ALL hard work" and my point contributes to the discussion of whether or not it is ALL hard work. A student doing phenomenal work with a lesser known PI might not get published in Nature because the reviewers are biased to think it must be wrong while the inferior work of a student with a more famous PI might get accepted because the reviewers are biased to think it must be right. Similarly high quality groundbreaking work on a less sexy topic might get passed over for mundane work on a sexy topic.

I literally watched this happen in my department. A student in a big name PI's lab published the most simplest, mundane, obvious results in a sexy topic in a top tier journal while a student in a small lab with a less famous PI who completely altered the dogma of a less sexy pathway (although in a disease state that affects literally thousands more people than the sexy topic) struggles to get accepted into mid tier journals. Literally everyone in the department knows the latter student is the far superior scientist.

To play devil's advocate - that isn't really an example of luck, is it? It's pretty well known that big name PIs who do sexy research will be published more frequently and/or in better journals than no-name PIs researching dull topics, so couldn't you make your own "luck" by joining the lab of the biggest name PI possible and actively seeking out sexy research in that lab?

 

[speedyxx626]

To play devil's advocate - that isn't really an example of luck, is it? It's pretty well known that big name PIs who do sexy research will be published more frequently and/or in better journals than no-name PIs researching dull topics, so couldn't you make your own "luck" by joining the lab of the biggest name PI possible and actively seeking out sexy research in that lab?

Except that not everyone has access to such distinguished research faculty and even if we did they don't always have availability to take on new students.

 

[MaxPlancker]

To play devil's advocate - that isn't really an example of luck, is it? It's pretty well known that big name PIs who do sexy research will be published more frequently and/or in better journals than no-name PIs researching dull topics, so couldn't you make your own "luck" by joining the lab of the biggest name PI possible and actively seeking out sexy research in that lab?

Except that not everyone has access to such distinguished research faculty and even if we did they don't always have availability to take on new students.

Yet, funnily, there are certain people who have a knack for positioning themselves really well in addition to being very astute and hardworking--those are the people that will really go far. I agree, in general, there are a lot of factors such as where you are, availability, luck etc...but there are some people that seem to be able to position themselves perfectly, no matter where they are and that, in itself, is a skill.

 

[MSTP18]

To play devil's advocate - that isn't really an example of luck, is it? It's pretty well known that big name PIs who do sexy research will be published more frequently and/or in better journals than no-name PIs researching dull topics, so couldn't you make your own "luck" by joining the lab of the biggest name PI possible and actively seeking out sexy research in that lab?

as stated already, the big name PI might not be taking students the year you join. And while that might not be luck in the sense that it's totally random, it's certainly not an example of someone getting published because they are working harder than others, no? In the case I cited, the big name PI was not working on the sexy topic when the student initially joined the lab so while the PI was well established, they were in fact working on a very not sexy topic (at least not anymore, in my opinion) and simply replicated what they always do with the sexy topic when the sexy topic emerged.

 

[MSTP18]

And a bigger point with regard to this topic and where you publish is that I think it's pretty clear to anyone who spends 5 mins with each of these two PhD students which one is going to have the more successful career in the long run (plot twist - not the one with the high impact publication)

 

[ChordaEpiphany]

.

 

[ChordaEpiphany]

.

 

[Astra]

@libertyyne Great thread!

 

[IslandStyle808]

Yes we were discussing that because you said it is "ALL hard work" and my point contributes to the discussion of whether or not it is ALL hard work. A student doing phenomenal work with a lesser known PI might not get published in Nature because the reviewers are biased to think it must be wrong while the inferior work of a student with a more famous PI might get accepted because the reviewers are biased to think it must be right. Similarly high quality groundbreaking work on a less sexy topic might get passed over for mundane work on a sexy topic.

I literally watched this happen in my department. A student in a big name PI's lab published the most simplest, mundane, obvious results in a sexy topic in a top tier journal while a student in a small lab with a less famous PI who completely altered the dogma of a less sexy pathway (although in a disease state that affects literally thousands more people than the sexy topic) struggles to get accepted into mid tier journals. Literally everyone in the department knows the latter student is the far superior scientist.

I have a feeling the latter student got more citations than the former.

 

[Frogger27]

In terms of getting pubs in med school from data mining and retrospective chart reviews, is knowing how to program for data analysis necessary?

Or could you find someone who is proficient in these languages to run the data for you, then you interpret the data/write paper?

Not sure how many med students are proficient in R/python/etc and if this is necessary to get pubs

 

[MSTP18]

I have a feeling the latter student got more citations than the former.

Given the relative sexiness of the topics and thus the volume of people working on them, I would not take that bet - at least not right now. In 5 years when the former is probably out of research while the latter is an associate professor getting their first R level grants it will be a different story.